So much for "vibrant" --boring apt. building architecture going up right and left on the Avenues

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it a binary choice? Can't you have more housing that's reasonably attractive?

Of course you can. What policies do you want to propose to achieve that goal? Requiring developers to receive approval from the I Like The Looks Of This Building committee, whose membership consists of you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The number of DC residents is declining right now. Do we expect it to rebound now that so many people are able to work remotely? I watch as young people who grew up in the city are choosing to live in the suburbs for better schools and lower rates of crime.

Another "there is no housing shortage" person heard from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What services does GGWash provide to the city?

You're right, they don't, I got my wires crossed, and for that I apologize. But they also do not report receiving any money from the city. If you believe they are committing fraud, I strongly encourage you to act as a whistleblower and report them to the IRS.

If, on the other hand, all you have is innuendo, misinformation, hearsay, and lies, I hear the GOP is looking for a new Speaker of the House.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The number of DC residents is declining right now. Do we expect it to rebound now that so many people are able to work remotely? I watch as young people who grew up in the city are choosing to live in the suburbs for better schools and lower rates of crime.

Despite a declining population, the required number of housing units could still increase. Household size has been trending down for many reasons - that's why Washington DC has more housing units in 2022 (360,890) than in 1950 (229,738) despite a lower population (~689k vs ~802k). There are increasingly fewer and fewer multigenerational families living together, not to mention the fact that boarding houses and single occupancy rooms are no longer allowed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The number of DC residents is declining right now. Do we expect it to rebound now that so many people are able to work remotely? I watch as young people who grew up in the city are choosing to live in the suburbs for better schools and lower rates of crime.

Another "there is no housing shortage" person heard from.

There is a shortage of starter homes inside the beltway. Based on the occupancy rate of some of this new construction there does not seem to be a shortage of luxury urban loft apartments.

We need apartments under $250,000 and houses under $750,000 not $500,000 apartments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The number of DC residents is declining right now. Do we expect it to rebound now that so many people are able to work remotely? I watch as young people who grew up in the city are choosing to live in the suburbs for better schools and lower rates of crime.

Another "there is no housing shortage" person heard from.

There is a shortage of starter homes inside the beltway. Based on the occupancy rate of some of this new construction there does not seem to be a shortage of luxury urban loft apartments.

We need apartments under $250,000 and houses under $750,000 not $500,000 apartments.

Oh yes, the mythical unoccupied apartments. And the mythical housing market, where supply has no effect on price, and nobody ever considers trade-offs between housing type and price.

[Anonymous]

Given everything else going on, can we afford to ruminate re: "boring architecture?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What services does GGWash provide to the city?

They lobby for the mayor’s aggressive development agenda, which as it turns out is the same agenda as GGW’s private funders’ goals. Look who else besides the taxpayers funds GGW: Bozzuto, Akridge, JBG zoning law firms, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The number of DC residents is declining right now. Do we expect it to rebound now that so many people are able to work remotely? I watch as young people who grew up in the city are choosing to live in the suburbs for better schools and lower rates of crime.

Another "there is no housing shortage" person heard from.

There is a shortage of starter homes inside the beltway. Based on the occupancy rate of some of this new construction there does not seem to be a shortage of luxury urban loft apartments.

We need apartments under $250,000 and houses under $750,000 not $500,000 apartments.

Oh yes, the mythical unoccupied apartments. And the mythical housing market, where supply has no effect on price, and nobody ever considers trade-offs between housing type and price.

Real estate markets are highly segmented by type, location and quality/amenities. But that doesn’t stop development lobbyists and their flacks from spinning tired Reagan-era trickle-down economic theory that DC can build its way to “affordable housing” by doubling down on upzoning and more and more dense mixed-use upmarket development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What services does GGWash provide to the city?

You're right, they don't, I got my wires crossed, and for that I apologize. But they also do not report receiving any money from the city. If you believe they are committing fraud, I strongly encourage you to act as a whistleblower and report them to the IRS.

If, on the other hand, all you have is innuendo, misinformation, hearsay, and lies, I hear the GOP is looking for a new Speaker of the House.

GGW got in hot water with the DC attorney general for their “training” of supportive ANC commissioners.

[Anonymous]

Totally agree that we need $250k apartments and $750K houses. And they are not being built anywhere. I'm curious to see what the new Macklin townhouses will go for on Connecticut. They're ugly and boring, so they should not be that expensive, but I bet they are listed for over a million.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Given everything else going on, can we afford to ruminate re: "boring architecture?"

I'm the OP, and I am also concerned by the other issues being discussed. However, I see it as this relentless, wearying chipping away at the reasons why anyone, at all, regardless of income would want to live here in the first place. Random violence is the base of the hierarchy of needs (safety) and MUST be addressed. But the thoughtful, possibly greed driven, unintended consequences development versus good, thoughtful urban planning development also impacts whether communities ( and the people in them) thrive. As a DC native I hold Columbia Heights as an example. No insult to the residents of Columbia Heights; it's such a cool neighborhood with so much history and so much potential. When metro came in there was a rush of bad development that did not pay off. If they had slowed down and done it better, there wouldn't be empty big box eyesores next to metro. What I see is that replicating everywhere; the developers build mediocre, profitable whatever. The neighborhood is left holding the bag when they're long gone. It's a problem for those of us who love this town.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Totally agree that we need $250k apartments and $750K houses. And they are not being built anywhere. I'm curious to see what the new Macklin townhouses will go for on Connecticut. They're ugly and boring, so they should not be that expensive, but I bet they are listed for over a million.

They would be less expensive if there were more of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given everything else going on, can we afford to ruminate re: "boring architecture?"

I'm the OP, and I am also concerned by the other issues being discussed. However, I see it as this relentless, wearying chipping away at the reasons why anyone, at all, regardless of income would want to live here in the first place. Random violence is the base of the hierarchy of needs (safety) and MUST be addressed. But the thoughtful, possibly greed driven, unintended consequences development versus good, thoughtful urban planning development also impacts whether communities ( and the people in them) thrive. As a DC native I hold Columbia Heights as an example. No insult to the residents of Columbia Heights; it's such a cool neighborhood with so much history and so much potential. When metro came in there was a rush of bad development that did not pay off. If they had slowed down and done it better, there wouldn't be empty big box eyesores next to metro. What I see is that replicating everywhere; the developers build mediocre, profitable whatever. The neighborhood is left holding the bag when they're long gone. It's a problem for those of us who love this town.

In 50 years, if humanity is still alive on the planet, people will be wanting to designate some of these buildings as historic, and get extremely upset about proposals to demolish them and replace them with something else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Totally agree that we need $250k apartments and $750K houses. And they are not being built anywhere. I'm curious to see what the new Macklin townhouses will go for on Connecticut. They're ugly and boring, so they should not be that expensive, but I bet they are listed for over a million.

They would be less expensive if there were more of them.

Yes, but that's because the property market crashes due to over supply. Which is presumably something we don't want.