Arlington Missing Middle Housing Q&A

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Missing Middle will be a boon to builders who are already banking single family lots along Langston Blvd awaiting upzoning. They are renting the houses until they can be torn down for MM.

Meanwhile, people who could have bought those houses and lived in them are dealing with a shrinking inventory of somewhat affordable housing in Arlington.

Big winners will be builders who can now put 8 houses instead of one on a lot and the people selling their houses to builders.

Then that would be a win bc the most they can build is an 8 plex. If the Plan Langston Blvd people get their way, it will be all mid and high rises stretching down Langston. The best anyone near Langston could hope for is MM.

A number of the YIMBYs pushing MM live off Langston Blvd. One has to wonder what their motives might be -- perhaps maximizing their profits on the sale of their s**tshacks.

Maybe they want someplace local to downsize, or for their kids to be able to afford homes in the neighborhood? I really can’t imagine how tearing down a SFH along a 4-lane road and replacing it with townhouses or duplexes is going to ruin the “character” of the neighborhood.

That is because it won’t ruin the character.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP, I see your point but in Arlington the problem is that the CB has zero plans for funding all the required infrastructure including schools. Millennials are going to have kids. Our schools are overcrowded, even with Covid departures, and they have zero inclination or opportunity to build more schools. Transportation isn't complete enough to provide bus service into far reaches of the county.

It's a nice idea but cramming more people into a space that doesn't have the necessary infrastructure only hurts both current and new residents.

They should then move to a place without overcrowded schools! Right. Every county has crowded schools!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Missing Middle will be a boon to builders who are already banking single family lots along Langston Blvd awaiting upzoning. They are renting the houses until they can be torn down for MM.

Meanwhile, people who could have bought those houses and lived in them are dealing with a shrinking inventory of somewhat affordable housing in Arlington.

Big winners will be builders who can now put 8 houses instead of one on a lot and the people selling their houses to builders.

Then that would be a win bc the most they can build is an 8 plex. If the Plan Langston Blvd people get their way, it will be all mid and high rises stretching down Langston. The best anyone near Langston could hope for is MM.

A number of the YIMBYs pushing MM live off Langston Blvd. One has to wonder what their motives might be -- perhaps maximizing their profits on the sale of their s**tshacks.

Maybe they want someplace local to downsize, or for their kids to be able to afford homes in the neighborhood? I really can’t imagine how tearing down a SFH along a 4-lane road and replacing it with townhouses or duplexes is going to ruin the “character” of the neighborhood.

A good portion of the single family areas in Arlington will be upzoned, not just the areas along Langston Blvd. So if you live in Dominion Hills on a 6,000 square foot lot, the lot could be upzoned to allow two duplexes with 4 housing units. If everyone does it, Dominion Hills will go from a starter home neighborhood to a community of duplexes. That changes the character from a single family neighborhood with front lawns and back yards to one with 4 housing units and 4 parking pads with patches of grass in the front and back.

Of course, Arlington County will probably fail to take into account that they have major sewer lines running through the back yards of many parts of Dominion Hills. Nothing can be built above those sewer lines. So they can only built one duplex at the front.

The four units would need to be one structure and meet the same setbacks as a SFH. That ensures it fits in with the neighborhood. Also, only two or three units would be permitted on a 6,000 square foot lot.

There is no requirement to build more units. Sounds like it’s not feasible on particular lots in your neighborhood so you don’t need to worry about people with slightly lower incomes moving near you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, I see your point but in Arlington the problem is that the CB has zero plans for funding all the required infrastructure including schools. Millennials are going to have kids. Our schools are overcrowded, even with Covid departures, and they have zero inclination or opportunity to build more schools. Transportation isn't complete enough to provide bus service into far reaches of the county.

It's a nice idea but cramming more people into a space that doesn't have the necessary infrastructure only hurts both current and new residents.

They should then move to a place without overcrowded schools! Right. Every county has crowded schools!!

The schools in the upper most parts of north Arlington are the least crowded. Either allow more housing to fill those seats or let Arlington bus kids from south arlington to your school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the county should prioritize denser housing along existing commercial corridors. Giving developers carte blanche to build 6 and 8-plex monsters in the middle of SFH neighborhoods just sounds...ill advised.

MM housing in residential neighborhoods would have the same setbacks of a SFH. They wouldn’t be any more of a monster than the standard Arlington McMansion.

The MM people want the ACB/Zoning to relax the setbacks to 15 feet rather than the current 25 feet. The only exceptions would have to be streets where there are neighborhood covenants that have a 35 foot setback.
The tricky parts are going to be lot coverage, storm water management, side setbacks, parking, side lots with traffic lines of sight, and tree coverage.

I had to politely point out to a neighbor who is the Arlington County planner working on MM housing that not all the lots in North Arlington are flat. All of the plans assume that multiple units can be placed on any lot. In hilly neighborhoods, there may be a 12,000 square foot lot (where planners envision 8 units can be built) that will only support one house, because most of the lot is a hillside. This would be very attractive to some people buying a single family home because they would have nice views and privacy. But it would be very expensive and difficult to engineer those 12,000 square foot lots to support 8 units. Thinking of Tara, Country Club Hills, Bellevue Forest, Crystal Spring Knolls, Dover, Riverwood, RiverCrest, Dominion Hills, Madison Manor, and other hilly areas. Her response was "I've never seen lots in Arlington where you could not build multiple housing units."
Mkay.

Anything can be done for a price. You’re not going to dump $500k in engineering and grading on a lot that cost you $1m and would support a $2m home. But you might if you could sell 8 units at $1.2m each. Like anything, the more desirable lots will be redeveloped first, but when those run out and prices go up they’ll go after the low hanging fruit as well.

+1; to the earlier commenter, I am confused about what point you are making. Upzoning does not mean the housing stock immediately changes. It just creates more options. If you don’t support MM or addressing urbanization, then don’t sell to a developer. Sell for less $ to a family. But realistically, if MM takes off, I would think the value of SFH appreciates. Also, existing houses in very hilly areas are less desirable. Please see all the threads asking about how to flatten a lot/add a retaining wall/address mosquitoes. Many of those areas you mentioned (Tara, dominion hills, Madison manor) also have zero privacy bc your neighbor is towering over you. But regardless, if people value the quality homes in Madison Manor, they will outbid a developer. So I’m not sure what your fears are? Many families live in 2k sq ft - not everyone needs 6k sq ft for a family of 4… and let’s be honest - these homes will still be 750k plus, so it’s not like you have section 8 housing everywhere. You have young Feds, nonprofit employees, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Missing Middle will be a boon to builders who are already banking single family lots along Langston Blvd awaiting upzoning. They are renting the houses until they can be torn down for MM.

Meanwhile, people who could have bought those houses and lived in them are dealing with a shrinking inventory of somewhat affordable housing in Arlington.

Big winners will be builders who can now put 8 houses instead of one on a lot and the people selling their houses to builders.

Then that would be a win bc the most they can build is an 8 plex. If the Plan Langston Blvd people get their way, it will be all mid and high rises stretching down Langston. The best anyone near Langston could hope for is MM.

A number of the YIMBYs pushing MM live off Langston Blvd. One has to wonder what their motives might be -- perhaps maximizing their profits on the sale of their s**tshacks.

Maybe they want someplace local to downsize, or for their kids to be able to afford homes in the neighborhood? I really can’t imagine how tearing down a SFH along a 4-lane road and replacing it with townhouses or duplexes is going to ruin the “character” of the neighborhood.

A good portion of the single family areas in Arlington will be upzoned, not just the areas along Langston Blvd. So if you live in Dominion Hills on a 6,000 square foot lot, the lot could be upzoned to allow two duplexes with 4 housing units. If everyone does it, Dominion Hills will go from a starter home neighborhood to a community of duplexes. That changes the character from a single family neighborhood with front lawns and back yards to one with 4 housing units and 4 parking pads with patches of grass in the front and back.

Of course, Arlington County will probably fail to take into account that they have major sewer lines running through the back yards of many parts of Dominion Hills. Nothing can be built above those sewer lines. So they can only built one duplex at the front.

Will it? It seems it would be much easier to develop luxury duplexes or town homes on the larger lots around Dover crystal, Bellevue forest etc. they can charge $$$ for people who can’t afford a $2-3m sfh. Harder to maximize profit in neighborhoods where houses list around $1m or lower

[Anonymous]

Can I ask a dumb question? Who does the yard work and roof maintenance on a quad or duplex or triplex? Is it set up like a condo? If not, how does the lawn get mowed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the county should prioritize denser housing along existing commercial corridors. Giving developers carte blanche to build 6 and 8-plex monsters in the middle of SFH neighborhoods just sounds...ill advised.

MM housing in residential neighborhoods would have the same setbacks of a SFH. They wouldn’t be any more of a monster than the standard Arlington McMansion.

The MM people want the ACB/Zoning to relax the setbacks to 15 feet rather than the current 25 feet. The only exceptions would have to be streets where there are neighborhood covenants that have a 35 foot setback.
The tricky parts are going to be lot coverage, storm water management, side setbacks, parking, side lots with traffic lines of sight, and tree coverage.

I had to politely point out to a neighbor who is the Arlington County planner working on MM housing that not all the lots in North Arlington are flat. All of the plans assume that multiple units can be placed on any lot. In hilly neighborhoods, there may be a 12,000 square foot lot (where planners envision 8 units can be built) that will only support one house, because most of the lot is a hillside. This would be very attractive to some people buying a single family home because they would have nice views and privacy. But it would be very expensive and difficult to engineer those 12,000 square foot lots to support 8 units. Thinking of Tara, Country Club Hills, Bellevue Forest, Crystal Spring Knolls, Dover, Riverwood, RiverCrest, Dominion Hills, Madison Manor, and other hilly areas. Her response was "I've never seen lots in Arlington where you could not build multiple housing units."
Mkay.

Anything can be done for a price. You’re not going to dump $500k in engineering and grading on a lot that cost you $1m and would support a $2m home. But you might if you could sell 8 units at $1.2m each. Like anything, the more desirable lots will be redeveloped first, but when those run out and prices go up they’ll go after the low hanging fruit as well.

+1; to the earlier commenter, I am confused about what point you are making. Upzoning does not mean the housing stock immediately changes. It just creates more options. If you don’t support MM or addressing urbanization, then don’t sell to a developer. Sell for less $ to a family. But realistically, if MM takes off, I would think the value of SFH appreciates. Also, existing houses in very hilly areas are less desirable. Please see all the threads asking about how to flatten a lot/add a retaining wall/address mosquitoes. Many of those areas you mentioned (Tara, dominion hills, Madison manor) also have zero privacy bc your neighbor is towering over you. But regardless, if people value the quality homes in Madison Manor, they will outbid a developer. So I’m not sure what your fears are? Many families live in 2k sq ft - not everyone needs 6k sq ft for a family of 4… and let’s be honest - these homes will still be 750k plus, so it’s not like you have section 8 housing everywhere. You have young Feds, nonprofit employees, etc.

You might be right about who will live there, but these will all be rentals. They won’t be sold to individual owners. This is a crazy good opportunity for absentee landlords.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can I ask a dumb question? Who does the yard work and roof maintenance on a quad or duplex or triplex? Is it set up like a condo? If not, how does the lawn get mowed?

Landlord if there’s one property owner and condo if different owners. There are condos in DC with a small number of units. Arlington has some townhouse developments with a small number of townhomes. I’ve see a few built in south arlington.

[Anonymous]

The crux of affordable high density house is people fear it will change neighborhood.

Many years ago in early 1990s my brothers rich posh town already had home prices shooting up and older people sitting in large empty homes. Young people could not afford to buy and older people would not free up house as wanted to stay in neighborhood but no where to go.

The plan was to convert a gorgeous large old unused school in town in a great location to below market 65 plus housing. First choice was existing residents of town.

Sounds great. Well lawsuits started citing Racism as older residents mainly white, then affordable housing lawsuits as existing residents were mainly well off. Lawsuits were town basically used public funds and property.

Well after it was filled they were forced all new residents from outside town, low income, etc. That was last project approved.

Why the plan solves nothing and creates more problems.

The theory the widows and empty Nestor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can I ask a dumb question? Who does the yard work and roof maintenance on a quad or duplex or triplex? Is it set up like a condo? If not, how does the lawn get mowed?

Landlord if there’s one property owner and condo if different owners. There are condos in DC with a small number of units. Arlington has some townhouse developments with a small number of townhomes. I’ve see a few built in south arlington.

I’ve seen duplexes set up where you basically own in fee simple everything in your side of the property line/party wall. You maintain your half, your neighbor maintains his. It works well. It also makes it very hard to redevelop later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can I ask a dumb question? Who does the yard work and roof maintenance on a quad or duplex or triplex? Is it set up like a condo? If not, how does the lawn get mowed?

Landlord if there’s one property owner and condo if different owners. There are condos in DC with a small number of units. Arlington has some townhouse developments with a small number of townhomes. I’ve see a few built in south arlington.

I’ve seen duplexes set up where you basically own in fee simple everything in your side of the property line/party wall. You maintain your half, your neighbor maintains his. It works well. It also makes it very hard to redevelop later.

That’s different zoning. R2-7 is for duplexes. The proposal would apply to R-5 and above. Buildings would need to comply with zoning rules for single family homes and all or most outdoor space would be shared.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The crux of affordable high density house is people fear it will change neighborhood.

Many years ago in early 1990s my brothers rich posh town already had home prices shooting up and older people sitting in large empty homes. Young people could not afford to buy and older people would not free up house as wanted to stay in neighborhood but no where to go.

The plan was to convert a gorgeous large old unused school in town in a great location to below market 65 plus housing. First choice was existing residents of town.

Sounds great. Well lawsuits started citing Racism as older residents mainly white, then affordable housing lawsuits as existing residents were mainly well off. Lawsuits were town basically used public funds and property.

Well after it was filled they were forced all new residents from outside town, low income, etc. That was last project approved.

Why the plan solves nothing and creates more problems.

The theory the widows and empty Nestor

Missing middle is not affordable (aka low income) housing. These are separate issues. Missing middle is more affordable than a single family home but not within the price range for a household with income below 100k, according to the report.

[Anonymous]

Grew up in South Arlington.
From what I've learned from college peers after graduating from Wakefield, there are a good number of families who are dissatisfied with the public school offering and send their children to private schools. I didn't know these families while I was in high school - met them when I was in college. Actually, there were a few I met when I was a freshmen at Wakefield. Some upperclassmen were leaving for private schools. All in all, it is not an insubstantial amount.
I think it is an unsaid assumption by county planners that they don't need to pay attention to education services because they can just let dissatisfied families opt for private schools to alleviate the public school crowding.

[Anonymous]

Two points I haven't seen brought up by anyone in this whole debate:

1) Arlington doesn't exist in a vacuum - the housing stock exists within the NoVa region. So while MM supporters are correct that only increased supply can bring prices down, what they don't realize is that increase in supply will simply draw more demand from the outer suburbs into Arlington. Net result is that Arlington is just as expensive as before, at higher density, while the real price advantages show up in Fairfax, etc. Which may be desirable for the region, but not Arlington county. As an aside, I find it disingenuous that supporters of MM ignore this point while making this exact same argument against car-centric development ("induced demand", ie more freeways don't reduce traffic)

2) I also find it disingenuous that supporters of MM try to frame it as a libertarian angle - "the government isn't restricting what you can do with your own property! Isn't that great?". Well, ok, does that mean I can buy a lot next to a SFH and build a prison? What about a casino behind a school? A strip club? "Oh no", MM supporters say, "we just mean you can now build duplexes/triplexes with the same setbacks". Well, ok.....but.....that's still zoning. We're just now having a discussion around what limits of zoning are appropriate. Don't pretend MM is putting forward some libertarian utopia.