upzoning: what will it really change?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Upzoning is the environmentally responsible thing to do. By fitting more people in the close-in neighborhoods close to public transit, you reduce the need for people to drive.

There is much more space for people to build affordable homes at the outer reaches of metro. If you want affordable housing - buy a condo near Shady Grove or Greenbelt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am curious about people who are anti-upzoning (which means changing SFH zoning to multifamily in this instance) and what you think that it is going to change in the short- to medium-term. Lets say DC changes its zoning regs so that the whole city is zoned for multifamily housing. Why does this upset you? What do you envision happening in the long-term? Changing zoning laws doesnt mean that your neighborhood of SFHs is all of a sudden going to be torn down and condos put in its place. If you own a SFH, you still own a SFH.

Is your concern that builders will only build multi-family housing moving forward and there won't be any new single family homes? If that is the case, looking at the undeveloped parts of the city now, I really can't picture anywhere that is ideal for SFHs. Am I missing something?

yes, you are missing quite bit. I take from your post that you don’t own any property here in DC? Because If you did - you would not be asking this question. SFH neighborhoods are super expensive to own in. But I, like thousands of others, made the choice as a quality of life option for me and my family. We like our trees and lack of congestion. And news flash - the cost is what happens in all nice neighborhoods - be it NYC burb or Boston - or the Main Line. DC is not unique in that regard.

The DC Wharf has so many lovely condos for you to enjoy. Buy whatever home you can afford, but don’t think destroying others’ right to property ownership is your entitlement. It is not.

Upzoning doesn't destroy anyones rights to property ownership. But it does allow for more people to have homes.

Upzoning transforms livable urban spaces into overcrowded and under resourced neighborhoods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Awkward question. In the post COVID world, does DC need more housing? Our population is shrinking and downtown DC is hollowing out. Isn’t the better solution to convert vacant offices downtown to housing? That way you avoid the need for these ridiculous bike lanes on major thoroughfares, you keep downtown viable, and you preserve modest single family home neighborhoods.

I think in theory this makes a ton of sense, and is great from a preservation and environmental perspective, but I'm not sure of the profitability stripping and retrofitting those buildings vs building new. Like going from office to residential, you need more than one kitchen and bathroom per floor (unless each floor is its own massive unit, maybe, but even then you need *different* kitchen and bath facilities). That's a ton of plumbing, just to start!

I think the conversion of family sized dwellings to 1 and 2 bedroom condos only is harmful, but I would love to see more 3-4 bed options in upzoned areas. It's not a binary choice between 1 bedrooms for new grads and single family detached homes for families. Just look at the many, many double stacked townhomes popping up around MoCo.

The city should offer tax incentives for downtown residential conversion. The city has a vested interest in preventing downtown from becoming a ghost town both to preserve the tax base and for public safety. These tax incentives may actually end up being revenue neutral when you consider the cost of the CT Ave bike lanes and the business closures they will cause. It makes total sense to do this, except the Mayor will have to weather the temper tantrum the bike community will have.

Muriel versus the lycra-nauts! I can't wait!

A small business owner in Cleveland Park announced last week that he was closing his store of 30 years specifically because the proposed bike lanes would make it impossible economically to continue. More will follow, sadly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am curious about people who are anti-upzoning (which means changing SFH zoning to multifamily in this instance) and what you think that it is going to change in the short- to medium-term. Lets say DC changes its zoning regs so that the whole city is zoned for multifamily housing. Why does this upset you? What do you envision happening in the long-term? Changing zoning laws doesnt mean that your neighborhood of SFHs is all of a sudden going to be torn down and condos put in its place. If you own a SFH, you still own a SFH.

Is your concern that builders will only build multi-family housing moving forward and there won't be any new single family homes? If that is the case, looking at the undeveloped parts of the city now, I really can't picture anywhere that is ideal for SFHs. Am I missing something?

yes, you are missing quite bit. I take from your post that you don’t own any property here in DC? Because If you did - you would not be asking this question. SFH neighborhoods are super expensive to own in. But I, like thousands of others, made the choice as a quality of life option for me and my family. We like our trees and lack of congestion. And news flash - the cost is what happens in all nice neighborhoods - be it NYC burb or Boston - or the Main Line. DC is not unique in that regard.

The DC Wharf has so many lovely condos for you to enjoy. Buy whatever home you can afford, but don’t think destroying others’ right to property ownership is your entitlement. It is not.

Upzoning doesn't destroy anyones rights to property ownership. But it does allow for more people to have homes.

you miss the point. Why should SFH ownership be altered when there is demand and a healthy market for it? But you are right about “more people” having ownership - the condos at City Ridge will be incredible. For a price.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because popups and popbacks make neighborhoods ugly?

Because people with kids need single family homes?

Because increasing density is more likely to drive housing prices up than down?

Because DC is already one of the most densely populated cities in North America?

Because we don't have the infrastructure for it? (Funny how the people who want upzoning say we can't accommodate any more people's cars)

Because no one has a right to housing in a fancy neighborhood?

Because everyone can't live in the same place?

Because it reduces the quality of life for people who are already there?

Because in the vast majority of DC, upzoning is synonymous with gentrification?

Have you been to New York City? It kind of sucks.

You make some valid points but l disagree with others. There are 3 ADUs in my alley in AU Park, within walking distance of Metro. At least these ones don’t contribute to gentrification. 1 is rented to an AU student. 1 is rented to a single women - l don’t know her but I would guess she either can’t afford a house in the neighborhood on her own, and/or prefers a small place in a great convenient neighborhood and the ADU and yard are better for her dog than an apartment. It’s quite a charming place. And 1 is used by the family as a home gym and kid hang-out space. They aren’t contributing to gentrification and I’d like to build one myself one of these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Upzoning is the environmentally responsible thing to do. By fitting more people in the close-in neighborhoods close to public transit, you reduce the need for people to drive.

This. If you're going to have a certain number of people in a city, the more densely you can pack them into the smallest land area the better for the environment in just about every way.

I prefer to drive and, with my electric car, will continue to do so. I have no interest in taking public transport for my daily chores. Maybe, if I worked downtown. But otherwise no interest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Upzoning is the environmentally responsible thing to do. By fitting more people in the close-in neighborhoods close to public transit, you reduce the need for people to drive.

This. If you're going to have a certain number of people in a city, the more densely you can pack them into the smallest land area the better for the environment in just about every way.

With upzoning, DC will drive the taxpayers out of town. DC has attracted high income white collar workers precisely because it has close in SFH neighborhoods. They pay the bills, unfortunately.

[Anonymous]

Here is why I left DC. My taxes were close to ten percent. the mayor is sticking homeless people in apartment buildings without a care about the impact of putting severely mentally ill people in the unit next to someone who is now paying $3200 a month to live in a homeless shelter. There has been a mass shooter on Upton and attempted murders on Wisconsin ave. The metro is a mess ( I know Dc is only part of that problem.) and now people are trying to transform Dc’s quiet leafy green streets into A series of ugly duplexes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Progressives' vision of a utopia for housing and what they want to tear down your neighborhood for:







Ughhh, just piss off already.

Picture number 2 is Italy l think

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll sell my house and move immediately. Your house is worth far more converted into two units. San Francisco has converted numerous single family homes into two or three units and the prices increased. Make me rich!

and look at how wonderful san fran is! An overpriced dump stop for the homeless But you will have a windfall/ And there it is folks - what up zoning is really about!

Remember the nutjob who thought Kavanaugh raped her? Rather than admit that she was using her house (illegally) as a two family house with two separate entrances, she tried to convince the Senate it was over some trauma suffered during the attack from a fear of being smothered.

That's the type of neighbors you will have with upzoning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am curious about people who are anti-upzoning (which means changing SFH zoning to multifamily in this instance) and what you think that it is going to change in the short- to medium-term. Lets say DC changes its zoning regs so that the whole city is zoned for multifamily housing. Why does this upset you? What do you envision happening in the long-term? Changing zoning laws doesnt mean that your neighborhood of SFHs is all of a sudden going to be torn down and condos put in its place. If you own a SFH, you still own a SFH.

Is your concern that builders will only build multi-family housing moving forward and there won't be any new single family homes? If that is the case, looking at the undeveloped parts of the city now, I really can't picture anywhere that is ideal for SFHs. Am I missing something?

yes, you are missing quite bit. I take from your post that you don’t own any property here in DC? Because If you did - you would not be asking this question. SFH neighborhoods are super expensive to own in. But I, like thousands of others, made the choice as a quality of life option for me and my family. We like our trees and lack of congestion. And news flash - the cost is what happens in all nice neighborhoods - be it NYC burb or Boston - or the Main Line. DC is not unique in that regard.

The DC Wharf has so many lovely condos for you to enjoy. Buy whatever home you can afford, but don’t think destroying others’ right to property ownership is your entitlement. It is not.

Upzoning doesn't destroy anyones rights to property ownership. But it does allow for more people to have homes.

Plenty of homes for people who can afford the upzoned homes which will be expensive to rent or to buy. This is not going to solve the problem for people who want homes and cannot afford them in close in urban neighborhoods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am curious about people who are anti-upzoning (which means changing SFH zoning to multifamily in this instance) and what you think that it is going to change in the short- to medium-term. Lets say DC changes its zoning regs so that the whole city is zoned for multifamily housing. Why does this upset you? What do you envision happening in the long-term? Changing zoning laws doesnt mean that your neighborhood of SFHs is all of a sudden going to be torn down and condos put in its place. If you own a SFH, you still own a SFH.

Is your concern that builders will only build multi-family housing moving forward and there won't be any new single family homes? If that is the case, looking at the undeveloped parts of the city now, I really can't picture anywhere that is ideal for SFHs. Am I missing something?

yes, you are missing quite bit. I take from your post that you don’t own any property here in DC? Because If you did - you would not be asking this question. SFH neighborhoods are super expensive to own in. But I, like thousands of others, made the choice as a quality of life option for me and my family. We like our trees and lack of congestion. And news flash - the cost is what happens in all nice neighborhoods - be it NYC burb or Boston - or the Main Line. DC is not unique in that regard.

The DC Wharf has so many lovely condos for you to enjoy. Buy whatever home you can afford, but don’t think destroying others’ right to property ownership is your entitlement. It is not.

Upzoning doesn't destroy anyones rights to property ownership. But it does allow for more people to have homes.

Upzoning transforms livable urban spaces into overcrowded and under resourced neighborhoods.

Don’t forget line the pockets of developers who over promise and under deliver.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Upzoning is the environmentally responsible thing to do. By fitting more people in the close-in neighborhoods close to public transit, you reduce the need for people to drive.

Upzoning Ward 3 would increase impervious surfaces which would have significant negative environmental consequences.

Not compared to trying to house the same number of people in single-family homes.

Did you go to Twitter University for your degree in environmental science? Because you don’t seem to understand much about stormwater management and ecosystem services.

[Anonymous]

1. Upzoning is the natural course of growth in urban and semiurban areas. Once it’s no longer practical to build out — because it takes people too far away from infrastructure, jobs, and amenities — you build up. Fighting upzoning is silly.

2. Whatever is built as a result of upzoning will usually be more expensive than whatever end-of-life structure it replaces on a per-unit basis. That’s what happens when there’s investment. You get nicer stuff that costs more. We should embrace that rather than fighting it. From a builder’s standpoint, there’s also a decision about whether to build multifamily or single family. Single family may yield higher margins even when it’s not the best use of the land.

3. No. 2 won’t happen on a large scale without structural reform in the housing market. Builders make more money with less risk when there’s a shortage. They’re very sensitive to price and stop building in a given area at the first sign prices are flattening. That’s not to say they don’t misread the market sometimes, but usually when they misread the market they create a shortage, not a surplus. Sitting on underutilized land must be made more expensive through taxes and fees. You never hear the urbanists talk about this one because they’re part of an astroturf movement and this would obviously cut into developers’ profits.

4. We’ll never fix the housing market because the developers and homeowners who hold influence over elected officials both profit from shortage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because popups and popbacks make neighborhoods ugly?

Because people with kids need single family homes?

Because increasing density is more likely to drive housing prices up than down?

Because DC is already one of the most densely populated cities in North America?

Because we don't have the infrastructure for it? (Funny how the people who want upzoning say we can't accommodate any more people's cars)

Because no one has a right to housing in a fancy neighborhood?

Because everyone can't live in the same place?

Because it reduces the quality of life for people who are already there?

Because in the vast majority of DC, upzoning is synonymous with gentrification?

Have you been to New York City? It kind of sucks.

“Because DC is already one of the most densely populated cities in North America?” <- this is not even remotely close to being true, fyi.