Interesting twist on DC "density argument" - Metro ridership continues to plummet

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea that increasing density will reduce housing costs is such a weird lie.

Housing in cities has been getting more dense since forever -- no one has ever torn down a condo building in order to make way for a single-family home. It only goes in the other direction.

And yet the most densely populated places in America -- like DC -- are, as always, the most expensive places in America.

What's weird about it? Increasing density increases the supply of housing. Increasing the supply of housing reduces the price of housing. That's basic economics.

The most densely-populated places in America, which are not very densely-populated, are expensive because lots of people want to live there. That's also basic economics. Housing costs are low in Louisa County, Iowa (population density 28 people per square mile) because few people want to live there.

Except increasing density is like cutting taxes for rich people in the (false) hope they will then use those savings to spur the economy. Trickle-down economics never work. and there's a growing amount of scholarship that says the only people who benefit from increased housing density are privileged White people (like, say, the privileged White people who write for GGW).

https://furmancenter.org/files/Supply_Skepticism_-_Final.pdf

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1078087418824672

Naturally, this scholarship is not considered by GGW types who claim (with exactly zero evidence) that housing prices will follow the same rules of supply and demand as, say, bread.

Except the extant literature is pretty established: building new housing decreases (or moderates the increase of) prices on housing in the immediate vicinity. Indeed, the first paper you link validates that claim! The second doesn't approach it, however. Feel free to peruse additional literature yourself:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/oplls6utgf7z6ih/Pennington_JMP.pdf?dl=0

https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/7fc2bf_ee1737c3c9d4468881bf1434814a6f8f.pdf

https://www.urbandisplacement.org/sites/default/files/images/udp_research_brief_052316.pdf

https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1334&context=up_workingpapers

https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1325&context=up_workingpapers

https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3345

You clearly have an axe to grind against GGW, which is pretty weird but we all have our hobbies. But you should understand that the facts are not on your side.

[Anonymous]

There's a pandemic

There's a pandemic

There's a pandemic

There's a pandemic


Road use is way down too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's a pandemic

There's a pandemic

There's a pandemic

There's a pandemic


Road use is way down too.

Yeah, and bus use is more attractive than metro. And may stay that way for inter-city travel. I certainly prefer the bus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"Increasing density" is really just gentrification, and gentrification ("increasing density") drives housing prices up.

Because the more people you pack into an area, the more attractive you make it to businesses. Bars, restaurants, boutiques want to be where lots of people are. Once bars, restaurants, boutiques move in, then the area seems more attractive to many people, which increases demand for housing, which drives prices up. That creates more demand for even more housing, which spurs more condo buildings, which attracts more businesses, which makes the area seem more attractive to more people, which increases demand for housing in that area-- and so on and so on.

It's been happening over and over and over across DC.

Nah, dude. Increasing density is just increasing density.

Now, if you want to argue that dense places are attractive places that people and business like, that's fine with me. In that case, we should allow more dense places to be built.

I think what makes DC attractive is the variety of neighborhoods and lifestyle choices in so small a city. The density bros look at a neighborhood that some people find desirable precisely because it isn't dense, and argue that it should be made denser (thereby erasing what made it attractive in the first place). it's sort of a Catch-22 (hope I'm using that right/know it's often misused). The desirability factor of course guarantees immediate winnings for developers. Once DC looks the SAME everywhere, they'll have moved on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea that increasing density will reduce housing costs is such a weird lie.

Housing in cities has been getting more dense since forever -- no one has ever torn down a condo building in order to make way for a single-family home. It only goes in the other direction.

And yet the most densely populated places in America -- like DC -- are, as always, the most expensive places in America.

What's weird about it? Increasing density increases the supply of housing. Increasing the supply of housing reduces the price of housing. That's basic economics.

The most densely-populated places in America, which are not very densely-populated, are expensive because lots of people want to live there. That's also basic economics. Housing costs are low in Louisa County, Iowa (population density 28 people per square mile) because few people want to live there.

"Increasing density" is really just gentrification, and gentrification ("increasing density") drives housing prices up.

Because the more people you pack into an area, the more attractive you make it to businesses. Bars, restaurants, boutiques want to be where lots of people are. Once bars, restaurants, boutiques move in, then the area seems more attractive to many people, which increases demand for housing, which drives prices up. That creates more demand for even more housing, which spurs more condo buildings, which attracts more businesses, which makes the area seem more attractive to more people, which increases demand for housing in that area-- and so on and so on.

It's been happening over and over and over across DC.

False -- the places where people most aggressively oppose increasing density are already quite wealthy (think of anywhere on the Red Line north of, say, Dupont Circle). You could build an ENORMOUS amount of new, dense housing near Metro stations there, and gentrification isn't an issue at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"Increasing density" is really just gentrification, and gentrification ("increasing density") drives housing prices up.

Because the more people you pack into an area, the more attractive you make it to businesses. Bars, restaurants, boutiques want to be where lots of people are. Once bars, restaurants, boutiques move in, then the area seems more attractive to many people, which increases demand for housing, which drives prices up. That creates more demand for even more housing, which spurs more condo buildings, which attracts more businesses, which makes the area seem more attractive to more people, which increases demand for housing in that area-- and so on and so on.

It's been happening over and over and over across DC.

Nah, dude. Increasing density is just increasing density.

Now, if you want to argue that dense places are attractive places that people and business like, that's fine with me. In that case, we should allow more dense places to be built.

I think what makes DC attractive is the variety of neighborhoods and lifestyle choices in so small a city. The density bros look at a neighborhood that some people find desirable precisely because it isn't dense, and argue that it should be made denser (thereby erasing what made it attractive in the first place). it's sort of a Catch-22 (hope I'm using that right/know it's often misused). The desirability factor of course guarantees immediate winnings for developers. Once DC looks the SAME everywhere, they'll have moved on.

OK, so in that case, increasing density won't cause gentrification. Yay!

[Anonymous]

"Trickle-down gentrification" is a more apt term than "smart growth."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea that increasing density will reduce housing costs is such a weird lie.

Housing in cities has been getting more dense since forever -- no one has ever torn down a condo building in order to make way for a single-family home. It only goes in the other direction.

And yet the most densely populated places in America -- like DC -- are, as always, the most expensive places in America.

What's weird about it? Increasing density increases the supply of housing. Increasing the supply of housing reduces the price of housing. That's basic economics.

The most densely-populated places in America, which are not very densely-populated, are expensive because lots of people want to live there. That's also basic economics. Housing costs are low in Louisa County, Iowa (population density 28 people per square mile) because few people want to live there.

"Increasing density" is really just gentrification, and gentrification ("increasing density") drives housing prices up.

Because the more people you pack into an area, the more attractive you make it to businesses. Bars, restaurants, boutiques want to be where lots of people are. Once bars, restaurants, boutiques move in, then the area seems more attractive to many people, which increases demand for housing, which drives prices up. That creates more demand for even more housing, which spurs more condo buildings, which attracts more businesses, which makes the area seem more attractive to more people, which increases demand for housing in that area-- and so on and so on.

It's been happening over and over and over across DC.

False -- the places where people most aggressively oppose increasing density are already quite wealthy (think of anywhere on the Red Line north of, say, Dupont Circle). You could build an ENORMOUS amount of new, dense housing near Metro stations there, and gentrification isn't an issue at all.

Um, 5 seconds of googling proves this really wrong, at least in DC. One of the biggest opponents of increased density is a Black Anacostia resident who has filed lawsuits on behalf of poor Black residents of Barry Farm, the Union Market area and Buzzard Point (all of them now priced out because of increased density there).

https://www.stooplaw.com/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Trickle-down gentrification" is a more apt term than "smart growth."

Y'all need to make up your mind.

IF building more housing on top of Metro stations is gentrification because it will become an attractive area where lots of people want to live, THEN people want more housing on top of Metro stations, AND we should allow more to be built.

IF few people want to live in housing on top of Metro stations, THEN builders won't build housing on top of Metro stations, AND it won't cause gentrification.

So, which is it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Trickle-down gentrification" is a more apt term than "smart growth."

Y'all need to make up your mind.

IF building more housing on top of Metro stations is gentrification because it will become an attractive area where lots of people want to live, THEN people want more housing on top of Metro stations, AND we should allow more to be built.

IF few people want to live in housing on top of Metro stations, THEN builders won't build housing on top of Metro stations, AND it won't cause gentrification.

So, which is it?

The point is few people currently want to ride Metro, so the argument that we MUST build on top of Metro in DC is stupid. Spread mixed income development throughout the city, which has great bus lines. Ah, but the developers don't want to do that $$$$$

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Trickle-down gentrification" is a more apt term than "smart growth."

Y'all need to make up your mind.

IF building more housing on top of Metro stations is gentrification because it will become an attractive area where lots of people want to live, THEN people want more housing on top of Metro stations, AND we should allow more to be built.

IF few people want to live in housing on top of Metro stations, THEN builders won't build housing on top of Metro stations, AND it won't cause gentrification.

So, which is it?

The point is few people currently want to ride Metro, so the argument that we MUST build on top of Metro in DC is stupid. Spread mixed income development throughout the city, which has great bus lines. Ah, but the developers don't want to do that $$$$$

If you think the city has great bus lines, you are either commuting at 6 AM or WFH pre-pandemic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Trickle-down gentrification" is a more apt term than "smart growth."

Y'all need to make up your mind.

IF building more housing on top of Metro stations is gentrification because it will become an attractive area where lots of people want to live, THEN people want more housing on top of Metro stations, AND we should allow more to be built.

IF few people want to live in housing on top of Metro stations, THEN builders won't build housing on top of Metro stations, AND it won't cause gentrification.

So, which is it?

The point is few people currently want to ride Metro, so the argument that we MUST build on top of Metro in DC is stupid. Spread mixed income development throughout the city, which has great bus lines. Ah, but the developers don't want to do that $$$$$

If you think the city has great bus lines, you are either commuting at 6 AM or WFH pre-pandemic.

DC has great bus lines, though they could be further approved. WMATA is currently shifting resources to them due to low metro ridership and increased interest in bus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Trickle-down gentrification" is a more apt term than "smart growth."

Y'all need to make up your mind.

IF building more housing on top of Metro stations is gentrification because it will become an attractive area where lots of people want to live, THEN people want more housing on top of Metro stations, AND we should allow more to be built.

IF few people want to live in housing on top of Metro stations, THEN builders won't build housing on top of Metro stations, AND it won't cause gentrification.

So, which is it?

The point is few people currently want to ride Metro, so the argument that we MUST build on top of Metro in DC is stupid. Spread mixed income development throughout the city, which has great bus lines. Ah, but the developers don't want to do that $$$$$

Perhaps you haven't heard that there's a pandemic?

Nobody is saying that builders MUST build on top of Metro. Allowing builders to build on top of Metro is not the same as requiring builders to build on top of Metro. If you want to allow builders to build housing like that away from Metro, too, that's fine with me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea that increasing density will reduce housing costs is such a weird lie.

Housing in cities has been getting more dense since forever -- no one has ever torn down a condo building in order to make way for a single-family home. It only goes in the other direction.

And yet the most densely populated places in America -- like DC -- are, as always, the most expensive places in America.

What's weird about it? Increasing density increases the supply of housing. Increasing the supply of housing reduces the price of housing. That's basic economics.

The most densely-populated places in America, which are not very densely-populated, are expensive because lots of people want to live there. That's also basic economics. Housing costs are low in Louisa County, Iowa (population density 28 people per square mile) because few people want to live there.

"Increasing density" is really just gentrification, and gentrification ("increasing density") drives housing prices up.

Because the more people you pack into an area, the more attractive you make it to businesses. Bars, restaurants, boutiques want to be where lots of people are. Once bars, restaurants, boutiques move in, then the area seems more attractive to many people, which increases demand for housing, which drives prices up. That creates more demand for even more housing, which spurs more condo buildings, which attracts more businesses, which makes the area seem more attractive to more people, which increases demand for housing in that area-- and so on and so on.

It's been happening over and over and over across DC.

False -- the places where people most aggressively oppose increasing density are already quite wealthy (think of anywhere on the Red Line north of, say, Dupont Circle). You could build an ENORMOUS amount of new, dense housing near Metro stations there, and gentrification isn't an issue at all.

Um, 5 seconds of googling proves this really wrong, at least in DC. One of the biggest opponents of increased density is a Black Anacostia resident who has filed lawsuits on behalf of poor Black residents of Barry Farm, the Union Market area and Buzzard Point (all of them now priced out because of increased density there).

https://www.stooplaw.com/

But the most SUCCESSFUL opponents of increased density are the people in upper NW neighborhoods who usually stop projects from going forward before it even gets to the point of filing a lawsuit afterwards.

[Anonymous]

There is talk of converting hotels and empty office buildings in DC to residences. These would be even closer to downtown "vibrancy". There is zero reason to compete with this in our Covid shattered real estate landscape by building MORE density when we clearly have potential stock in place.