The Urbanist Cult

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do some people think it’s the government’s responsibility to buy them stuff?

Because we are in an unprecedented time where we have the technology and resources to provide basic human needs to everyone, and some of us see it as unconscionable not to do so when we are able. Food, shelter, clothing, education, healthcare, there is no scarcity problem, only a distribution problem. The government can correct that problem therefore the government needs to correct that problem, anything else is a failure of its duty to its citizens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Today I learned that over the past decade, housing unit production in DC outpaced population growth. According to the YIMBY urbanist crowd, this should have led to lower prices and yet prices went up, up, up.

Honestly, we will be in a better world when these simpletons are ignored.

Prices actually did go up in DC considerably more slowly than the national average, and considerably slower than other high cost cities. See:

https://realestatedecoded.com/case-shiller/

You can see in the second chart that adjusted for inflation, DC prices increased only modestly through 2019. You can also see from the first tables that we've had some of the slowest price appreciation over the past year. You can also see in the "Real Monthly Principal and Interest Price Index" that, once you adjust for both inflation *and* declining mortgage interest rates, DC has basically not gotten any more expensive at all for homeowners who take out mortgages, and it's cheaper to own in real terms than it was in the early 1990s or mid-2000s.

The demand curve slopes downward.

And yet, they still went up by a lot. Never down.

To be clear, we are talking about renting, not owning because that was the bulk of housing production and DC has traditionally been in the top 10 most expensive cities to rent in America for the last decade and in some surveys in the top 5. Building more did not make it cheaper.

The best data that I could find on this comes from the Zillow Observed Rent Index, which has monthly data going back to 2014. I compared the data over the six-year period from January 2014 to January 2020 to exclude the effects of the pandemic. Over this period, DC rents grew by an average of 2.01% per year, less than half the national average rental growth rate of 4.18%. In fact, of the 50 largest metro areas in the data, only 4 (Baltimore, Virginia Beach, Oklahoma City, and New Orleans) had slower rental price growth than DC, and none of those are exactly hotbeds of economic growth and opportunity like DC. Except for Baltimore, every single one of the top 30 markets had rental price growth that was at least 1/2 a percentage point faster than DC.

https://www.zillow.com/research/data/

Was it enough to make rents go down? No. But rents in the DC metro barely increased faster than inflation, unlike virtually every other major metro. Increasing the supply by building housing works.

Okay. So then the GGW, YIMBY crowd has been lying for the last decade about housing costs?

People cannot have it both ways here. You’re saying that it’s worked. They themselves are saying that it’s not worked. You’re telling me they’re wrong?

I really don't see the logical inconsistency. Increasing supply puts downward pressure on prices. Population growth, demographics and changing preferences put upward pressure on prices, especially for increasingly desirable ways of living for which the supply of housing is inelastic (e.g. rowhouses in gentrifying close-in neighborhoods).

This region built more housing than most places, so its prices and rents went up more slowly than most other cities. Increasing the housing supply does work. But, prices still went up on an inflation adjusted basis because we didn't build enough to overcome the demand side forces that are pushing prices up. And, prices for the most inelastically supplied types of housing still went up quite fast, because we don't really build those types of housing anymore and so couldn't blunt the increase in demand. The types of housing we do build are seen as imperfect substitutes.

The build more strategy works to depress average prices across the metro. If your goal is to keep rents stable after inflation, we didn't quite build enough to get there, though we got much closer than most. We certainly didn't build enough to make rents appreciably cheaper, which is the stated goal of many. But, if your goal is to keep real costs stable for certain well-liked ways of living, then that is much harder. It requires significant regulatory reform to allow or mandate more of the types of housing that is desired. Compounding that is that some things simply can't be replicated because close-in land is inherently scarce. It is essentially impossible to build enough close-in single-family homes to make them cheaper for this reason. Any changes that affect the supply side of these homes like removing single family zoning will probably only make them more expensive. What we can do is make the substitutes more affordable (through construction) and more attractive through things like improved transit access, more walkable neighborhood layouts, and more commercial amenities. That's what most self-proclaimed "urbanists" are advocating for.

Where's the logical inconsistency?

So are they telling the truth or lying when they say that zoning is preventing housing from being built?

Current zoning puts an artificial limit in what could have been built or what might be built in the future.

This urbanist nonsense again? How can you possibly argue that zoning is restraining housing development in this area when developers are sitting on approvals for tens of thousands of units and building under limits even in prime locations? It’s comical. A site was approved for 450 units. The developer built 300. Yet you claim zoning is limiting production. Maybe we need to start having density minimums instead of maximums.

It’s also fascinating to see how many affordable housing champions and purveyors of urbanism disappear as soon as politicians start talking about pandemic relief for renters. Like you say, housing is infrastructure, so when we’re in a crisis the infrastructure providers should be stepping up to help people out. The publicly traded REITs are putting up big profits, so I imagine the situation for large private landlords is the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Today I learned that over the past decade, housing unit production in DC outpaced population growth. According to the YIMBY urbanist crowd, this should have led to lower prices and yet prices went up, up, up.

Honestly, we will be in a better world when these simpletons are ignored.

Prices actually did go up in DC considerably more slowly than the national average, and considerably slower than other high cost cities. See:

https://realestatedecoded.com/case-shiller/

You can see in the second chart that adjusted for inflation, DC prices increased only modestly through 2019. You can also see from the first tables that we've had some of the slowest price appreciation over the past year. You can also see in the "Real Monthly Principal and Interest Price Index" that, once you adjust for both inflation *and* declining mortgage interest rates, DC has basically not gotten any more expensive at all for homeowners who take out mortgages, and it's cheaper to own in real terms than it was in the early 1990s or mid-2000s.

The demand curve slopes downward.

And yet, they still went up by a lot. Never down.

To be clear, we are talking about renting, not owning because that was the bulk of housing production and DC has traditionally been in the top 10 most expensive cities to rent in America for the last decade and in some surveys in the top 5. Building more did not make it cheaper.

The best data that I could find on this comes from the Zillow Observed Rent Index, which has monthly data going back to 2014. I compared the data over the six-year period from January 2014 to January 2020 to exclude the effects of the pandemic. Over this period, DC rents grew by an average of 2.01% per year, less than half the national average rental growth rate of 4.18%. In fact, of the 50 largest metro areas in the data, only 4 (Baltimore, Virginia Beach, Oklahoma City, and New Orleans) had slower rental price growth than DC, and none of those are exactly hotbeds of economic growth and opportunity like DC. Except for Baltimore, every single one of the top 30 markets had rental price growth that was at least 1/2 a percentage point faster than DC.

https://www.zillow.com/research/data/

Was it enough to make rents go down? No. But rents in the DC metro barely increased faster than inflation, unlike virtually every other major metro. Increasing the supply by building housing works.

Okay. So then the GGW, YIMBY crowd has been lying for the last decade about housing costs?

People cannot have it both ways here. You’re saying that it’s worked. They themselves are saying that it’s not worked. You’re telling me they’re wrong?

I really don't see the logical inconsistency. Increasing supply puts downward pressure on prices. Population growth, demographics and changing preferences put upward pressure on prices, especially for increasingly desirable ways of living for which the supply of housing is inelastic (e.g. rowhouses in gentrifying close-in neighborhoods).

This region built more housing than most places, so its prices and rents went up more slowly than most other cities. Increasing the housing supply does work. But, prices still went up on an inflation adjusted basis because we didn't build enough to overcome the demand side forces that are pushing prices up. And, prices for the most inelastically supplied types of housing still went up quite fast, because we don't really build those types of housing anymore and so couldn't blunt the increase in demand. The types of housing we do build are seen as imperfect substitutes.

The build more strategy works to depress average prices across the metro. If your goal is to keep rents stable after inflation, we didn't quite build enough to get there, though we got much closer than most. We certainly didn't build enough to make rents appreciably cheaper, which is the stated goal of many. But, if your goal is to keep real costs stable for certain well-liked ways of living, then that is much harder. It requires significant regulatory reform to allow or mandate more of the types of housing that is desired. Compounding that is that some things simply can't be replicated because close-in land is inherently scarce. It is essentially impossible to build enough close-in single-family homes to make them cheaper for this reason. Any changes that affect the supply side of these homes like removing single family zoning will probably only make them more expensive. What we can do is make the substitutes more affordable (through construction) and more attractive through things like improved transit access, more walkable neighborhood layouts, and more commercial amenities. That's what most self-proclaimed "urbanists" are advocating for.

Where's the logical inconsistency?

So are they telling the truth or lying when they say that zoning is preventing housing from being built?

Current zoning puts an artificial limit in what could have been built or what might be built in the future.

This urbanist nonsense again? How can you possibly argue that zoning is restraining housing development in this area when developers are sitting on approvals for tens of thousands of units and building under limits even in prime locations? It’s comical. A site was approved for 450 units. The developer built 300. Yet you claim zoning is limiting production. Maybe we need to start having density minimums instead of maximums.

It’s also fascinating to see how many affordable housing champions and purveyors of urbanism disappear as soon as politicians start talking about pandemic relief for renters. Like you say, housing is infrastructure, so when we’re in a crisis the infrastructure providers should be stepping up to help people out. The publicly traded REITs are putting up big profits, so I imagine the situation for large private landlords is the same.

I don't know where this development you're referring to is located. I look out on my neighborhood in NE DC and see that every new development is being built right to the height and zoning limits. But, taking your argument seriously here...

Your claim appears to be that developers limit the rate of housing production to prevent declines in real prices. I agree that it's not impossible, but an equilibrium like this requires either collusion or monopoly power at some point in the chain.
After all, it's individually rational for each developer to keep producing housing until prices decline to the point of 0 economic profit. So how does this cartel work? Is it the REITs or other financiers colluding to deny money to projects that build too much? Is it the developers themselves cutting deals with each other to prop up rents? Is it that certain developers own all the plots in certain neighborhoods and therefore have local monopoly power? Surely if we can identify the mechanism that encourages builders to build less, then we can eliminate the issue through anti-trust enforcement and other existing tools.

The only other possible explanation is that when someone doesn't build to the max allowable zoning it's because there actually is no increase in profit to be gained by building more. In an expensive housing market like DC, we know that this isn't because of materials costs. But, it could be because of high regulatory or legal costs, or other building regulations that bind at lower density (things like limits on the use of wood frame construction). Most of the "urbanist" folks I know recognize that zoning laws are just one kind of regulation that can limit housing supply, and that being sensible about other restrictions is also needed to reduce housing costs. That opinion gets a lot of flak for being pro-developer, of course, but it's really just pro-development. In a world where housing is built by private entities, there really can be no meaningful distinction in terms of encouraging housing supply.

If you want to make a cogent argument, I'm all ears. But if you want to solve the problem of high housing costs, you have to actually define the problem.

[Anonymous]

It’s always a sign of a mature theory when they cannot provide a clear and objective outcome to measure success.

More units built than population growth? Not enough. Zoning is to blame.

Tens of thousands of units approved but not built? Zoning is to blame.

In order to test your ideas it must be falsifiable. What outcome would prove to you that your ideas don’t work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do some people think it’s the government’s responsibility to buy them stuff?

Because we are in an unprecedented time where we have the technology and resources to provide basic human needs to everyone, and some of us see it as unconscionable not to do so when we are able. Food, shelter, clothing, education, healthcare, there is no scarcity problem, only a distribution problem. The government can correct that problem therefore the government needs to correct that problem, anything else is a failure of its duty to its citizens.

Hear, hear!

No reason to make people suffer when food, housing, clothes, schooling and healthcare are plentiful. We owe it to those who are without and the best way to make sure people get these necessities is good government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do some people think it’s the government’s responsibility to buy them stuff?

Because we are in an unprecedented time where we have the technology and resources to provide basic human needs to everyone, and some of us see it as unconscionable not to do so when we are able. Food, shelter, clothing, education, healthcare, there is no scarcity problem, only a distribution problem. The government can correct that problem therefore the government needs to correct that problem, anything else is a failure of its duty to its citizens.

Hear, hear!

No reason to make people suffer when food, housing, clothes, schooling and healthcare are plentiful. We owe it to those who are without and the best way to make sure people get these necessities is good government.

This is what happens when you raise a generation where everyone gets a trophy.

As a liberal Democrat, I find this sentiment embarrassing and the reason why we barely won the last election and will lose the next.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s always a sign of a mature theory when they cannot provide a clear and objective outcome to measure success.

More units built than population growth? Not enough. Zoning is to blame.

Tens of thousands of units approved but not built? Zoning is to blame.

In order to test your ideas it must be falsifiable. What outcome would prove to you that your ideas don’t work?

First, you have to acknowledge that housing is heterogeneous, preferences are heterogeneous, and so different types of housing are imperfect substitutes for each other. Just because a lot of one type of housing is built in some places doesn't mean that "enough" housing is being built of all types in all places. There is, for example, no way that we can physically build enough SFHs in upper NW DC on existing lot sizes to accommodate future demand for that method of living at current prices. Essentially 0 such new homes can be built. Unless demand for that type of living declines faster than population growth, we will probably see price increases for those homes outpace inflation. Increasing the number of close-in condos relieves the pressure on SFH prices a little, but not entirely because they are only imperfect substitutes for one another. So, you have to be sure that you are using an appropriate measure of housing prices that compares like for like among the close substitutes to new construction housing. Average home prices are a fairly imperfect measure for that in markets like DC where the new housing stock looks fairly different from a lot of the existing housing stock.

Second, in places where the supply of close housing substitutes is very elastic, prices are basically only dictated by the cost of building it. So, increasing costs of construction (including regulatory costs) can push up prices even if zoning is a complete non-issue. That is also the point at which builders have no incentive to build up to the limits of zoning, since additional new housing could drive prices below the cost of production. I still don't know where you're claiming that this is happening, but this can happen in places where regulatory costs of construction are unusually high. Reducing those non-zoning regulatory costs would lead to an increase in construction and a corresponding decline in housing prices.

Third, everything I have said is absolutely testable and falsifiable, in fact there is a whole literature on this. You just have to acknowledge that at a micro level, it is usually very difficult to disentangle supply and demand side factors. Housing is built in the places and forms where it is easiest/cheapest to build (because of available/cheaper land or less restrictive zoning). It's also more likely to be built in the places where demand for housing and for that type of housing is strongest (e.g. new large buildings close to job centers). And, new housing often comes with new local amenities that could help push nearby prices up rather than down because of corresponding increased demand. At the metro level some of these things average out and so you can infer some things from changes in average prices, but at a local level in places where lots of supply is being built it's a big problem. So, in order to empirically measure what the demand for housing looks like, you just need to find instances when the supply of housing in a local market changed unexpectedly. Basically, a shock to the supply curve lets you trace out the shape of demand curve, and vice versa. There are a number of economics papers that have done this with things like unexpected construction delays (Asquith and Reed 2020) and building fires (Pennington 2020). They find, very clearly, that new construction reduces surrounding home prices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s always a sign of a mature theory when they cannot provide a clear and objective outcome to measure success.

More units built than population growth? Not enough. Zoning is to blame.

Tens of thousands of units approved but not built? Zoning is to blame.

In order to test your ideas it must be falsifiable. What outcome would prove to you that your ideas don’t work?

First, you have to acknowledge that housing is heterogeneous, preferences are heterogeneous, and so different types of housing are imperfect substitutes for each other. Just because a lot of one type of housing is built in some places doesn't mean that "enough" housing is being built of all types in all places. There is, for example, no way that we can physically build enough SFHs in upper NW DC on existing lot sizes to accommodate future demand for that method of living at current prices. Essentially 0 such new homes can be built. Unless demand for that type of living declines faster than population growth, we will probably see price increases for those homes outpace inflation. Increasing the number of close-in condos relieves the pressure on SFH prices a little, but not entirely because they are only imperfect substitutes for one another. So, you have to be sure that you are using an appropriate measure of housing prices that compares like for like among the close substitutes to new construction housing. Average home prices are a fairly imperfect measure for that in markets like DC where the new housing stock looks fairly different from a lot of the existing housing stock.

Second, in places where the supply of close housing substitutes is very elastic, prices are basically only dictated by the cost of building it. So, increasing costs of construction (including regulatory costs) can push up prices even if zoning is a complete non-issue. That is also the point at which builders have no incentive to build up to the limits of zoning, since additional new housing could drive prices below the cost of production. I still don't know where you're claiming that this is happening, but this can happen in places where regulatory costs of construction are unusually high. Reducing those non-zoning regulatory costs would lead to an increase in construction and a corresponding decline in housing prices.

Third, everything I have said is absolutely testable and falsifiable, in fact there is a whole literature on this. You just have to acknowledge that at a micro level, it is usually very difficult to disentangle supply and demand side factors. Housing is built in the places and forms where it is easiest/cheapest to build (because of available/cheaper land or less restrictive zoning). It's also more likely to be built in the places where demand for housing and for that type of housing is strongest (e.g. new large buildings close to job centers). And, new housing often comes with new local amenities that could help push nearby prices up rather than down because of corresponding increased demand. At the metro level some of these things average out and so you can infer some things from changes in average prices, but at a local level in places where lots of supply is being built it's a big problem. So, in order to empirically measure what the demand for housing looks like, you just need to find instances when the supply of housing in a local market changed unexpectedly. Basically, a shock to the supply curve lets you trace out the shape of demand curve, and vice versa. There are a number of economics papers that have done this with things like unexpected construction delays (Asquith and Reed 2020) and building fires (Pennington 2020). They find, very clearly, that new construction reduces surrounding home prices.

Uhm. What's the big deal with upper NW DC? If you want affordable housing, why don't locate in other parts of the city? Are you racist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s always a sign of a mature theory when they cannot provide a clear and objective outcome to measure success.

More units built than population growth? Not enough. Zoning is to blame.

Tens of thousands of units approved but not built? Zoning is to blame.

In order to test your ideas it must be falsifiable. What outcome would prove to you that your ideas don’t work?

First, you have to acknowledge that housing is heterogeneous, preferences are heterogeneous, and so different types of housing are imperfect substitutes for each other. Just because a lot of one type of housing is built in some places doesn't mean that "enough" housing is being built of all types in all places. There is, for example, no way that we can physically build enough SFHs in upper NW DC on existing lot sizes to accommodate future demand for that method of living at current prices. Essentially 0 such new homes can be built. Unless demand for that type of living declines faster than population growth, we will probably see price increases for those homes outpace inflation. Increasing the number of close-in condos relieves the pressure on SFH prices a little, but not entirely because they are only imperfect substitutes for one another. So, you have to be sure that you are using an appropriate measure of housing prices that compares like for like among the close substitutes to new construction housing. Average home prices are a fairly imperfect measure for that in markets like DC where the new housing stock looks fairly different from a lot of the existing housing stock.

Second, in places where the supply of close housing substitutes is very elastic, prices are basically only dictated by the cost of building it. So, increasing costs of construction (including regulatory costs) can push up prices even if zoning is a complete non-issue. That is also the point at which builders have no incentive to build up to the limits of zoning, since additional new housing could drive prices below the cost of production. I still don't know where you're claiming that this is happening, but this can happen in places where regulatory costs of construction are unusually high. Reducing those non-zoning regulatory costs would lead to an increase in construction and a corresponding decline in housing prices.

Third, everything I have said is absolutely testable and falsifiable, in fact there is a whole literature on this. You just have to acknowledge that at a micro level, it is usually very difficult to disentangle supply and demand side factors. Housing is built in the places and forms where it is easiest/cheapest to build (because of available/cheaper land or less restrictive zoning). It's also more likely to be built in the places where demand for housing and for that type of housing is strongest (e.g. new large buildings close to job centers). And, new housing often comes with new local amenities that could help push nearby prices up rather than down because of corresponding increased demand. At the metro level some of these things average out and so you can infer some things from changes in average prices, but at a local level in places where lots of supply is being built it's a big problem. So, in order to empirically measure what the demand for housing looks like, you just need to find instances when the supply of housing in a local market changed unexpectedly. Basically, a shock to the supply curve lets you trace out the shape of demand curve, and vice versa. There are a number of economics papers that have done this with things like unexpected construction delays (Asquith and Reed 2020) and building fires (Pennington 2020). They find, very clearly, that new construction reduces surrounding home prices.

I ain’t reading all that
I’m happy for u tho
Or sorry that happened

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s always a sign of a mature theory when they cannot provide a clear and objective outcome to measure success.

More units built than population growth? Not enough. Zoning is to blame.

Tens of thousands of units approved but not built? Zoning is to blame.

In order to test your ideas it must be falsifiable. What outcome would prove to you that your ideas don’t work?

First, you have to acknowledge that housing is heterogeneous, preferences are heterogeneous, and so different types of housing are imperfect substitutes for each other. Just because a lot of one type of housing is built in some places doesn't mean that "enough" housing is being built of all types in all places. There is, for example, no way that we can physically build enough SFHs in upper NW DC on existing lot sizes to accommodate future demand for that method of living at current prices. Essentially 0 such new homes can be built. Unless demand for that type of living declines faster than population growth, we will probably see price increases for those homes outpace inflation. Increasing the number of close-in condos relieves the pressure on SFH prices a little, but not entirely because they are only imperfect substitutes for one another. So, you have to be sure that you are using an appropriate measure of housing prices that compares like for like among the close substitutes to new construction housing. Average home prices are a fairly imperfect measure for that in markets like DC where the new housing stock looks fairly different from a lot of the existing housing stock.

Second, in places where the supply of close housing substitutes is very elastic, prices are basically only dictated by the cost of building it. So, increasing costs of construction (including regulatory costs) can push up prices even if zoning is a complete non-issue. That is also the point at which builders have no incentive to build up to the limits of zoning, since additional new housing could drive prices below the cost of production. I still don't know where you're claiming that this is happening, but this can happen in places where regulatory costs of construction are unusually high. Reducing those non-zoning regulatory costs would lead to an increase in construction and a corresponding decline in housing prices.

Third, everything I have said is absolutely testable and falsifiable, in fact there is a whole literature on this. You just have to acknowledge that at a micro level, it is usually very difficult to disentangle supply and demand side factors. Housing is built in the places and forms where it is easiest/cheapest to build (because of available/cheaper land or less restrictive zoning). It's also more likely to be built in the places where demand for housing and for that type of housing is strongest (e.g. new large buildings close to job centers). And, new housing often comes with new local amenities that could help push nearby prices up rather than down because of corresponding increased demand. At the metro level some of these things average out and so you can infer some things from changes in average prices, but at a local level in places where lots of supply is being built it's a big problem. So, in order to empirically measure what the demand for housing looks like, you just need to find instances when the supply of housing in a local market changed unexpectedly. Basically, a shock to the supply curve lets you trace out the shape of demand curve, and vice versa. There are a number of economics papers that have done this with things like unexpected construction delays (Asquith and Reed 2020) and building fires (Pennington 2020). They find, very clearly, that new construction reduces surrounding home prices.

The problem with the supply side approach is that absent regulation, the area’s market structure (small number of active developers, especially for high rise) and market incentives (sources of finance favor margin over volume) promote higher profits instead of more units. When we choose to subsidize market rate development, we need to align stringent conditions closely with public policy goals, and changes in zoning need to punish underutilization. The latter probably will cause land prices to drop for a time, but the land market is in need of a correction.

The housing challenge isn’t so much whether new supply puts downward pressure on pricing. The problem is how to get more supply, especially given that a small number of developers is responsible for a large percentage of the big projects, so for them driving down prices of existing units has a direct impact on the bottom line. They’re careful about adding supply, and over the past decade they’ve only slightly undershot rental demand.

[Anonymous]

there are about to be a billion new condos in upper north west. The former fannie mae building is about to open two blocks from my SFH. Those condos are going to have no impact on the price of my sfh which I bought for $350k 25 years ago and is now valued at $1.5m. SFH and condos are two different markets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:there are about to be a billion new condos in upper north west. The former fannie mae building is about to open two blocks from my SFH. Those condos are going to have no impact on the price of my sfh which I bought for $350k 25 years ago and is now valued at $1.5m. SFH and condos are two different markets.

Yeah no. I have lived in DC for a long time and SFH were only that cheap in upper NW in the 80s. In the year 2000, a TH in Columbia Heights when Target was still just an dirt lot was selling for $350k. I know personally because I almost bought one.

[Anonymous]

It is utterly depressing to watch “not just bikes”…-an urban planning YouTube channel made by a Canadian who moved to Amsterdam.

It’s highly detailed and there is no reason why dc cant be more like this…

https://youtu.be/F4kmDxcfR48

There needs to be a complete re-thinking in how the city is planned.

Utrecht, Amsterdam, delft, den Haag have amazing QoL and urban design.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is utterly depressing to watch “not just bikes”…-an urban planning YouTube channel made by a Canadian who moved to Amsterdam.

It’s highly detailed and there is no reason why dc cant be more like this…

https://youtu.be/F4kmDxcfR48

There needs to be a complete re-thinking in how the city is planned.

Utrecht, Amsterdam, delft, den Haag have amazing QoL and urban design.

There was nothing depressing about watching that video. It's a standard suburban lament from someone who doesn't like the suburban lifestyle that other people prefer. Good for him there is choice and he found a place he likes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is utterly depressing to watch “not just bikes”…-an urban planning YouTube channel made by a Canadian who moved to Amsterdam.

It’s highly detailed and there is no reason why dc cant be more like this…

https://youtu.be/F4kmDxcfR48

There needs to be a complete re-thinking in how the city is planned.

Utrecht, Amsterdam, delft, den Haag have amazing QoL and urban design.

There was nothing depressing about watching that video. It's a standard suburban lament from someone who doesn't like the suburban lifestyle that other people prefer. Good for him there is choice and he found a place he likes.

I am fine if you want suburban lifestyle- just keep it out of the city. I live in DC and VA and MD drivers are always speeding through my neighborhood on thier way to work, etc. Your decision to drive everywhere and live in the suburbs should not affect those in the city who have different priorities than you. I see nothing wrong with people advocating that the cities they live in become more bike/ pedestrian/ transport friendly