Arlington Missing Middle Housing Q&A

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven’t read all the pages on this, but just scanned a Boston fed report on increased density - even they say increased density makes neighborhoods less valuable/perceived quality declines for homeowners.

https://www.bostonfed.org/news-and-events/news/2022/10/boston-fed-research-relaxing-density-restrictions-best-way-to-increase-multifamily-housing.aspx

“House prices would likely fall with rents if greater housing density is allowed
The authors find that zoning reform that relaxes density restrictions doesn’t just reduce rents. It also causes house prices to fall—including single-family house prices. Their analysis shows that allowing one more housing unit per acre in a Greater Boston neighborhood increases the number of units in that neighborhood by an average of 0.4. This increase results in the neighborhood’s rents dropping more than 5% and house prices falling more than 7% on average (see graphic). House prices drop because the housing supply increases. Or they fall because when a neighborhood becomes denser, its perceived quality declines.“

Obviously, Boston is bigger than Arlington so our supply may not make a difference to prices but the perceived quality sure will decline!

that's great news! that way more people of all backgrounds can afford to live in Arlington. what's the problem with that?

In theory it sounds good. But I don't think prices will decrease in any meaningful way. Affordable housing in desirable areas doesn't just doesn't seem to pan out. If you can't afford to live in an area, go live somewhere else. I would love to live in San Diego, but here I am in DC

+1 to this.
Developers say this will bring affordable housing to make it more palatable, and the BOS will probably fall for it but there's no way the housing created from this will be affordable.

I don't know which developers are saying this, but the builders I work with think MMH will help them in several ways. First, they can build multiple units on one lot and the combined price of the units will be higher than the price of one house, even given the higher construction costs. Second, ArlCo will have to relax standards on set backs, lot coverage, and storm water management to get developers to build MMH. Builders can then argue that ArlCo has to do the same for single houses.

And why would this be good public policy?

Cos of flooding, heat islands, and loss of greenery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven’t read all the pages on this, but just scanned a Boston fed report on increased density - even they say increased density makes neighborhoods less valuable/perceived quality declines for homeowners.

https://www.bostonfed.org/news-and-events/news/2022/10/boston-fed-research-relaxing-density-restrictions-best-way-to-increase-multifamily-housing.aspx

“House prices would likely fall with rents if greater housing density is allowed
The authors find that zoning reform that relaxes density restrictions doesn’t just reduce rents. It also causes house prices to fall—including single-family house prices. Their analysis shows that allowing one more housing unit per acre in a Greater Boston neighborhood increases the number of units in that neighborhood by an average of 0.4. This increase results in the neighborhood’s rents dropping more than 5% and house prices falling more than 7% on average (see graphic). House prices drop because the housing supply increases. Or they fall because when a neighborhood becomes denser, its perceived quality declines.“

Obviously, Boston is bigger than Arlington so our supply may not make a difference to prices but the perceived quality sure will decline!

that's great news! that way more people of all backgrounds can afford to live in Arlington. what's the problem with that?

It's actually a catch 22. Once housing prices drop in Arlington, the "missing middle" will no longer be clamoring to live there. They only want to buy there now because they perceive that it's the ticket to wealth. But desirability does change over time. For example, PG County was viewed as being more desirable in the 1970s than it is today. (My parents lived in Greenbelt back then and said it was on par with desirable parts of Moco.) People shouldn't take for granted that just because Arlington is close in, it will always be desirable.

You are right about that. It’s not just be close in. It’s the access to the metro and now the fact that Arlington has been built up with businesses and retail. Your argument is make believe bc you can’t stand the idea that your house value might actually come down to be in line with what it’s actually worth.

Do you think those nice businesses, retail, and restaurants will stay in Arlington when housing prices fall and the affluent continue to move to McLean. Metro is less of a draw now as more people work from home or only commute a few days a week. It is easier and cheaper to drive to work two days than to use Metro for five days a week. Why do you think the traffic is so bad in Arlington? Read the recent article from "Protocol" about the Amazon buildings in Crystal City. They were designed for 2019 working and now the 2022 workforce isn't interested in them. Amazon is not sending its top executives to Arlington because of relocation costs and plans to hire locally among young people who can rent the cubes in CC and walk to work. Arlington relied too heavily on commercial and hotel tax revenue and now has to build missing middle housing to make up for the ongoing loss of this part of its tax base. The accompanying drop in schools, services, parks, and recreation facilities will only be exacerbated as more people crowd into the County.

I don't think Missing Middle Housing is a bad idea, but recognize it for what it is: a way to broaden the residential tax bases to make up for commercial tax losses. Even the dim head of the ACB admitted that Arlington was envious of neighboring counties and jurisdictions that had built their tax primarily on residential use. They do not have to play catch up with Missing Middle Housing to get more tax revenues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven’t read all the pages on this, but just scanned a Boston fed report on increased density - even they say increased density makes neighborhoods less valuable/perceived quality declines for homeowners.

https://www.bostonfed.org/news-and-events/news/2022/10/boston-fed-research-relaxing-density-restrictions-best-way-to-increase-multifamily-housing.aspx

“House prices would likely fall with rents if greater housing density is allowed
The authors find that zoning reform that relaxes density restrictions doesn’t just reduce rents. It also causes house prices to fall—including single-family house prices. Their analysis shows that allowing one more housing unit per acre in a Greater Boston neighborhood increases the number of units in that neighborhood by an average of 0.4. This increase results in the neighborhood’s rents dropping more than 5% and house prices falling more than 7% on average (see graphic). House prices drop because the housing supply increases. Or they fall because when a neighborhood becomes denser, its perceived quality declines.“

Obviously, Boston is bigger than Arlington so our supply may not make a difference to prices but the perceived quality sure will decline!

that's great news! that way more people of all backgrounds can afford to live in Arlington. what's the problem with that?

In theory it sounds good. But I don't think prices will decrease in any meaningful way. Affordable housing in desirable areas doesn't just doesn't seem to pan out. If you can't afford to live in an area, go live somewhere else. I would love to live in San Diego, but here I am in DC

+1 to this.
Developers say this will bring affordable housing to make it more palatable, and the BOS will probably fall for it but there's no way the housing created from this will be affordable.

I don't know which developers are saying this, but the builders I work with think MMH will help them in several ways. First, they can build multiple units on one lot and the combined price of the units will be higher than the price of one house, even given the higher construction costs. Second, ArlCo will have to relax standards on set backs, lot coverage, and storm water management to get developers to build MMH. Builders can then argue that ArlCo has to do the same for single houses.

The board isn't going to do that. Builders can apply for variances, but the board sold this by saying the only change would be allowing a building that is already allowed to be built by right to house more than one family. Granted, people apply for variances for their SFHs already, but the scenario in which MM results in bigger buildings than the typical SFH new build is panic, not foresight.

[Anonymous]

If they start building a lot of multiplexes in my neighborhood, they’re gonna need to also add some business-use zoning to open a coffee shop or just anything that’s not a field or a tennis court. We don’t have access to public transit and there are no shops in walking distance. I wouldn’t mind if that changed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If they start building a lot of multiplexes in my neighborhood, they’re gonna need to also add some business-use zoning to open a coffee shop or just anything that’s not a field or a tennis court. We don’t have access to public transit and there are no shops in walking distance. I wouldn’t mind if that changed.

I would LOVE to walk to a neighborhood coffee shop and grocery store.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they start building a lot of multiplexes in my neighborhood, they’re gonna need to also add some business-use zoning to open a coffee shop or just anything that’s not a field or a tennis court. We don’t have access to public transit and there are no shops in walking distance. I wouldn’t mind if that changed.

I would LOVE to walk to a neighborhood coffee shop and grocery store.

What part of Arlington are you in? I can walk to several already where I live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they start building a lot of multiplexes in my neighborhood, they’re gonna need to also add some business-use zoning to open a coffee shop or just anything that’s not a field or a tennis court. We don’t have access to public transit and there are no shops in walking distance. I wouldn’t mind if that changed.

I would LOVE to walk to a neighborhood coffee shop and grocery store.

What part of Arlington are you in? I can walk to several already where I live.[/quote

I’m probably further north. There’s a whole section of Arlington that’s miles from any retail. It’s definitely not convenient for anyone without a car.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven’t read all the pages on this, but just scanned a Boston fed report on increased density - even they say increased density makes neighborhoods less valuable/perceived quality declines for homeowners.

https://www.bostonfed.org/news-and-events/news/2022/10/boston-fed-research-relaxing-density-restrictions-best-way-to-increase-multifamily-housing.aspx

“House prices would likely fall with rents if greater housing density is allowed
The authors find that zoning reform that relaxes density restrictions doesn’t just reduce rents. It also causes house prices to fall—including single-family house prices. Their analysis shows that allowing one more housing unit per acre in a Greater Boston neighborhood increases the number of units in that neighborhood by an average of 0.4. This increase results in the neighborhood’s rents dropping more than 5% and house prices falling more than 7% on average (see graphic). House prices drop because the housing supply increases. Or they fall because when a neighborhood becomes denser, its perceived quality declines.“

Obviously, Boston is bigger than Arlington so our supply may not make a difference to prices but the perceived quality sure will decline!

that's great news! that way more people of all backgrounds can afford to live in Arlington. what's the problem with that?

In theory it sounds good. But I don't think prices will decrease in any meaningful way. Affordable housing in desirable areas doesn't just doesn't seem to pan out. If you can't afford to live in an area, go live somewhere else. I would love to live in San Diego, but here I am in DC

+1 to this.
Developers say this will bring affordable housing to make it more palatable, and the BOS will probably fall for it but there's no way the housing created from this will be affordable.

I don't know which developers are saying this, but the builders I work with think MMH will help them in several ways. First, they can build multiple units on one lot and the combined price of the units will be higher than the price of one house, even given the higher construction costs. Second, ArlCo will have to relax standards on set backs, lot coverage, and storm water management to get developers to build MMH. Builders can then argue that ArlCo has to do the same for single houses.

The board isn't going to do that. Builders can apply for variances, but the board sold this by saying the only change would be allowing a building that is already allowed to be built by right to house more than one family. Granted, people apply for variances for their SFHs already, but the scenario in which MM results in bigger buildings than the typical SFH new build is panic, not foresight.

I got a variance for my house (screened in porch) and it was super easy. I am sure the MM developers will all get variances too - that is why I just roll my eyes when people say "things won't change because the lot coverage and set back rules aren't changing"

[Anonymous]

The County staff has specifically said that variances WILL NOT be allowed on these missing middle lots.

quote=Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven’t read all the pages on this, but just scanned a Boston fed report on increased density - even they say increased density makes neighborhoods less valuable/perceived quality declines for homeowners.

https://www.bostonfed.org/news-and-events/news/2022/10/boston-fed-research-relaxing-densit y-restrictions-best-way-to-increase-multifamily-housing.aspx

“House prices would likely fall with rents if greater housing density is allowed
The authors find that zoning reform that relaxes density restrictions doesn’t just reduce rents. It also causes house prices to fall—including single-family house prices. Their analysis shows that allowing one more housing unit per acre in a Greater Boston neighborhood increases the number of units in that neighborhood by an average of 0.4. This increase results in the neighborhood’s rents dropping more than 5% and house prices falling more than 7% on average (see graphic). House prices drop because the housing supply increases. Or they fall because when a neighborhood becomes denser, its perceived quality declines.“

Obviously, Boston is bigger than Arlington so our supply may not make a difference to prices but the perceived quality sure will decline!

that's great news! that way more people of all backgrounds can afford to live in Arlington. what's the problem with that?

In theory it sounds good. But I don't think prices will decrease in any meaningful way. Affordable housing in desirable areas doesn't just doesn't seem to pan out. If you can't afford to live in an area, go live somewhere else. I would love to live in San Diego, but here I am in DC

+1 to this.
Developers say this will bring affordable housing to make it more palatable, and the BOS will probably fall for it but there's no way the housing created from this will be affordable.

I don't know which developers are saying this, but the builders I work with think MMH will help them in several ways. First, they can build multiple units on one lot and the combined price of the units will be higher than the price of one house, even given the higher construction costs. Second, ArlCo will have to relax standards on set backs, lot coverage, and storm water management to get developers to build MMH. Builders can then argue that ArlCo has to do the same for single houses.

The board isn't going to do that. Builders can apply for variances, but the board sold this by saying the only change would be allowing a building that is already allowed to be built by right to house more than one family. Granted, people apply for variances for their SFHs already, but the scenario in which MM results in bigger buildings than the typical SFH new build is panic, not foresight.

I got a variance for my house (screened in porch) and it was super easy. I am sure the MM developers will all get variances too - that is why I just roll my eyes when people say "things won't change because the lot coverage and set back rules aren't changing"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven’t read all the pages on this, but just scanned a Boston fed report on increased density - even they say increased density makes neighborhoods less valuable/perceived quality declines for homeowners.

https://www.bostonfed.org/news-and-events/news/2022/10/boston-fed-research-relaxing-density-restrictions-best-way-to-increase-multifamily-housing.aspx

“House prices would likely fall with rents if greater housing density is allowed
The authors find that zoning reform that relaxes density restrictions doesn’t just reduce rents. It also causes house prices to fall—including single-family house prices. Their analysis shows that allowing one more housing unit per acre in a Greater Boston neighborhood increases the number of units in that neighborhood by an average of 0.4. This increase results in the neighborhood’s rents dropping more than 5% and house prices falling more than 7% on average (see graphic). House prices drop because the housing supply increases. Or they fall because when a neighborhood becomes denser, its perceived quality declines.“

Obviously, Boston is bigger than Arlington so our supply may not make a difference to prices but the perceived quality sure will decline!

that's great news! that way more people of all backgrounds can afford to live in Arlington. what's the problem with that?

In theory it sounds good. But I don't think prices will decrease in any meaningful way. Affordable housing in desirable areas doesn't just doesn't seem to pan out. If you can't afford to live in an area, go live somewhere else. I would love to live in San Diego, but here I am in DC

+1 to this.
Developers say this will bring affordable housing to make it more palatable, and the BOS will probably fall for it but there's no way the housing created from this will be affordable.

I don't know which developers are saying this, but the builders I work with think MMH will help them in several ways. First, they can build multiple units on one lot and the combined price of the units will be higher than the price of one house, even given the higher construction costs. Second, ArlCo will have to relax standards on set backs, lot coverage, and storm water management to get developers to build MMH. Builders can then argue that ArlCo has to do the same for single houses.

The board isn't going to do that. Builders can apply for variances, but the board sold this by saying the only change would be allowing a building that is already allowed to be built by right to house more than one family. Granted, people apply for variances for their SFHs already, but the scenario in which MM results in bigger buildings than the typical SFH new build is panic, not foresight.

I got a variance for my house (screened in porch) and it was super easy. I am sure the MM developers will all get variances too - that is why I just roll my eyes when people say "things won't change because the lot coverage and set back rules aren't changing"

That is also why builders often don’t put patios or screened in porches on new homes until the buyers close on the new house. There is too much lot coverage for a screened in porch, but when the buyer owns it, the County is more lenient with variances.

You betcha ArlCo will give MMH developers any variances they want to induce builders to build in up-zoned neighborhoods. If no one builds MMH the ACB will have egg all over their face. Katie Cristol, whose stared goal was to bring MMH to the east coast, is conveniently not running again in case it is a flop. Libby Garvey said on Thursday night that some type of MMH would be passed soon, but it would take a while to get to the full program. She also is not running. Christian Dorsey is not running either and was at the meeting making worthless promises.

The three who are responsible for a divisive mess are walking away.

Your eye rolls are more than justified.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven’t read all the pages on this, but just scanned a Boston fed report on increased density - even they say increased density makes neighborhoods less valuable/perceived quality declines for homeowners.

https://www.bostonfed.org/news-and-events/news/2022/10/boston-fed-research-relaxing-density-restrictions-best-way-to-increase-multifamily-housing.aspx

“House prices would likely fall with rents if greater housing density is allowed
The authors find that zoning reform that relaxes density restrictions doesn’t just reduce rents. It also causes house prices to fall—including single-family house prices. Their analysis shows that allowing one more housing unit per acre in a Greater Boston neighborhood increases the number of units in that neighborhood by an average of 0.4. This increase results in the neighborhood’s rents dropping more than 5% and house prices falling more than 7% on average (see graphic). House prices drop because the housing supply increases. Or they fall because when a neighborhood becomes denser, its perceived quality declines.“

Obviously, Boston is bigger than Arlington so our supply may not make a difference to prices but the perceived quality sure will decline!

that's great news! that way more people of all backgrounds can afford to live in Arlington. what's the problem with that?

In theory it sounds good. But I don't think prices will decrease in any meaningful way. Affordable housing in desirable areas doesn't just doesn't seem to pan out. If you can't afford to live in an area, go live somewhere else. I would love to live in San Diego, but here I am in DC

+1 to this.
Developers say this will bring affordable housing to make it more palatable, and the BOS will probably fall for it but there's no way the housing created from this will be affordable.

I don't know which developers are saying this, but the builders I work with think MMH will help them in several ways. First, they can build multiple units on one lot and the combined price of the units will be higher than the price of one house, even given the higher construction costs. Second, ArlCo will have to relax standards on set backs, lot coverage, and storm water management to get developers to build MMH. Builders can then argue that ArlCo has to do the same for single houses.

The board isn't going to do that. Builders can apply for variances, but the board sold this by saying the only change would be allowing a building that is already allowed to be built by right to house more than one family. Granted, people apply for variances for their SFHs already, but the scenario in which MM results in bigger buildings than the typical SFH new build is panic, not foresight.

I got a variance for my house (screened in porch) and it was super easy. I am sure the MM developers will all get variances too - that is why I just roll my eyes when people say "things won't change because the lot coverage and set back rules aren't changing"

That is also why builders often don’t put patios or screened in porches on new homes until the buyers close on the new house. There is too much lot coverage for a screened in porch, but when the buyer owns it, the County is more lenient with variances.

You betcha ArlCo will give MMH developers any variances they want to induce builders to build in up-zoned neighborhoods. If no one builds MMH the ACB will have egg all over their face. Katie Cristol, whose stared goal was to bring MMH to the east coast, is conveniently not running again in case it is a flop. Libby Garvey said on Thursday night that some type of MMH would be passed soon, but it would take a while to get to the full program. She also is not running. Christian Dorsey is not running either and was at the meeting making worthless promises.

The three who are responsible for a divisive mess are walking away.

Your eye rolls are more than justified.

Cristol just shows up at a rally supporting MM: https://www.fcnp.com/2023/02/28/coalition-rallies-for-arlington-missing-middle-housing/

This CB has no shame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven’t read all the pages on this, but just scanned a Boston fed report on increased density - even they say increased density makes neighborhoods less valuable/perceived quality declines for homeowners.

https://www.bostonfed.org/news-and-events/news/2022/10/boston-fed-research-relaxing-density-restrictions-best-way-to-increase-multifamily-housing.aspx

“House prices would likely fall with rents if greater housing density is allowed
The authors find that zoning reform that relaxes density restrictions doesn’t just reduce rents. It also causes house prices to fall—including single-family house prices. Their analysis shows that allowing one more housing unit per acre in a Greater Boston neighborhood increases the number of units in that neighborhood by an average of 0.4. This increase results in the neighborhood’s rents dropping more than 5% and house prices falling more than 7% on average (see graphic). House prices drop because the housing supply increases. Or they fall because when a neighborhood becomes denser, its perceived quality declines.“

Obviously, Boston is bigger than Arlington so our supply may not make a difference to prices but the perceived quality sure will decline!

that's great news! that way more people of all backgrounds can afford to live in Arlington. what's the problem with that?

It's actually a catch 22. Once housing prices drop in Arlington, the "missing middle" will no longer be clamoring to live there. They only want to buy there now because they perceive that it's the ticket to wealth. But desirability does change over time. For example, PG County was viewed as being more desirable in the 1970s than it is today. (My parents lived in Greenbelt back then and said it was on par with desirable parts of Moco.) People shouldn't take for granted that just because Arlington is close in, it will always be desirable.

You are right about that. It’s not just be close in. It’s the access to the metro and now the fact that Arlington has been built up with businesses and retail. Your argument is make believe bc you can’t stand the idea that your house value might actually come down to be in line with what it’s actually worth.

Do you think those nice businesses, retail, and restaurants will stay in Arlington when housing prices fall and the affluent continue to move to McLean. Metro is less of a draw now as more people work from home or only commute a few days a week. It is easier and cheaper to drive to work two days than to use Metro for five days a week. Why do you think the traffic is so bad in Arlington? Read the recent article from "Protocol" about the Amazon buildings in Crystal City. They were designed for 2019 working and now the 2022 workforce isn't interested in them. Amazon is not sending its top executives to Arlington because of relocation costs and plans to hire locally among young people who can rent the cubes in CC and walk to work. Arlington relied too heavily on commercial and hotel tax revenue and now has to build missing middle housing to make up for the ongoing loss of this part of its tax base. The accompanying drop in schools, services, parks, and recreation facilities will only be exacerbated as more people crowd into the County.

I don't think Missing Middle Housing is a bad idea, but recognize it for what it is: a way to broaden the residential tax bases to make up for commercial tax losses. Even the dim head of the ACB admitted that Arlington was envious of neighboring counties and jurisdictions that had built their tax primarily on residential use. They do not have to play catch up with Missing Middle Housing to get more tax revenues.

DP. Housing prices falling in Arlington doesn’t magically open up commercially zoned real estate in other areas as “ …the affluent continue to move to McLean”.
If anything if you look at places like Alexandria vs. McLean or San Francisco vs. Atherton it seems like there’s an inverse relationship between retail and school quality etc

[Anonymous]

What’s the intersection between ADUs and missing middle? The MM criteria has changed overtime and I honestly have not kept up. I understand you can only have one ADU on your property right now but if MM passes, can you build 2 ADUs on your property? Like a multilevel garage with basement ADU (and emergency egress window wells) and another ADU above the garage?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What’s the intersection between ADUs and missing middle? The MM criteria has changed overtime and I honestly have not kept up. I understand you can only have one ADU on your property right now but if MM passes, can you build 2 ADUs on your property? Like a multilevel garage with basement ADU (and emergency egress window wells) and another ADU above the garage?

The only thing MM does is allow multiple dwellings within the same footprint as a SFH that could be built by right.

[Anonymous]

Multiple dwellings within a single building, to be clear. Not separate buildings