The Urbanist Cult

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody has explained the economics behind building two homes on a single family lot. Those costs include getting approval to tear down a $1 million SFH and building a brand new building that contains two homes that are affordable for middle class families. It literally makes no sense to a developer - the cost of construction alone makes it untenable.

This is what makes sense to a developer: tear down a $1 million dollar home and build two $1.5 million homes.

Maybe you should have this discussion with the "Soviet-style apartment blocks" PP.

Also, you're right, nobody will tear down a $1 million one-unit house to build a two-unit house. However, plenty of people will tear down a small, old one-unit house to build a large, new $1.5 million one-unit house. These same people would likely be willing to tear down a small, old one-unit house to build a large, new two-unit house at $1 million per unit.

I'll never understand why people who oppose building duplexes on SFH lots contrive the most ridiculous thought experiments as "proof" of why allowing those zoning changes doesn't make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody has explained the economics behind building two homes on a single family lot. Those costs include getting approval to tear down a $1 million SFH and building a brand new building that contains two homes that are affordable for middle class families. It literally makes no sense to a developer - the cost of construction alone makes it untenable.

This is what makes sense to a developer: tear down a $1 million dollar home and build two $1.5 million homes.

Maybe you should have this discussion with the "Soviet-style apartment blocks" PP.

Also, you're right, nobody will tear down a $1 million one-unit house to build a two-unit house. However, plenty of people will tear down a small, old one-unit house to build a large, new $1.5 million one-unit house. These same people would likely be willing to tear down a small, old one-unit house to build a large, new two-unit house at $1 million per unit.

And there are plenty of places like Arlington that make building or renovating an existing two-unit house much more complicated and regulated than tearing down an existing one- or two-unit house and building a giant one-unit house. See this thread here:

[Anonymous]

Is he one of the urbanist meanies who hurts the OP's feelings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody has explained the economics behind building two homes on a single family lot. Those costs include getting approval to tear down a $1 million SFH and building a brand new building that contains two homes that are affordable for middle class families. It literally makes no sense to a developer - the cost of construction alone makes it untenable.

This is what makes sense to a developer: tear down a $1 million dollar home and build two $1.5 million homes.

Maybe you should have this discussion with the "Soviet-style apartment blocks" PP.

Also, you're right, nobody will tear down a $1 million one-unit house to build a two-unit house. However, plenty of people will tear down a small, old one-unit house to build a large, new $1.5 million one-unit house. These same people would likely be willing to tear down a small, old one-unit house to build a large, new two-unit house at $1 million per unit.

I'll never understand why people who oppose building duplexes on SFH lots contrive the most ridiculous thought experiments as "proof" of why allowing those zoning changes doesn't make sense.

Fine - explain the economics of building duplexes in ward 3. To be credible, you need to include land and construction costs. I don’t see it, but maybe you can help me understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody has explained the economics behind building two homes on a single family lot. Those costs include getting approval to tear down a $1 million SFH and building a brand new building that contains two homes that are affordable for middle class families. It literally makes no sense to a developer - the cost of construction alone makes it untenable.

This is what makes sense to a developer: tear down a $1 million dollar home and build two $1.5 million homes.

Maybe you should have this discussion with the "Soviet-style apartment blocks" PP.

Also, you're right, nobody will tear down a $1 million one-unit house to build a two-unit house. However, plenty of people will tear down a small, old one-unit house to build a large, new $1.5 million one-unit house. These same people would likely be willing to tear down a small, old one-unit house to build a large, new two-unit house at $1 million per unit.

I'll never understand why people who oppose building duplexes on SFH lots contrive the most ridiculous thought experiments as "proof" of why allowing those zoning changes doesn't make sense.

Fine - explain the economics of building duplexes in ward 3. To be credible, you need to include land and construction costs. I don’t see it, but maybe you can help me understand.

There is more to the DC area than just Ward 3. However, if you oppose duplexes in Ward 3, and nobody would do it anyway if it's allowed, then why would you care if it's allowed?

[Anonymous]

According to Redfin, the cheapest empty lot in NW aid $1 million. A non-profit might be able to build a duplex for $500-$600k

So you are looking at the cheapest possible one-off scenario of a duplex costing $750k. That will get you a habitat for humanity level build.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody has explained the economics behind building two homes on a single family lot. Those costs include getting approval to tear down a $1 million SFH and building a brand new building that contains two homes that are affordable for middle class families. It literally makes no sense to a developer - the cost of construction alone makes it untenable.

This is what makes sense to a developer: tear down a $1 million dollar home and build two $1.5 million homes.

Maybe you should have this discussion with the "Soviet-style apartment blocks" PP.

Also, you're right, nobody will tear down a $1 million one-unit house to build a two-unit house. However, plenty of people will tear down a small, old one-unit house to build a large, new $1.5 million one-unit house. These same people would likely be willing to tear down a small, old one-unit house to build a large, new two-unit house at $1 million per unit.

I'll never understand why people who oppose building duplexes on SFH lots contrive the most ridiculous thought experiments as "proof" of why allowing those zoning changes doesn't make sense.

Fine - explain the economics of building duplexes in ward 3. To be credible, you need to include land and construction costs. I don’t see it, but maybe you can help me understand.

There is more to the DC area than just Ward 3. However, if you oppose duplexes in Ward 3, and nobody would do it anyway if it's allowed, then why would you care if it's allowed?

Because developers like you will come in - scoop up SFHs - and turn ward three into a hodgepodge of ugly multimillion duplexes. Literally the absolute worst of both worlds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody has explained the economics behind building two homes on a single family lot. Those costs include getting approval to tear down a $1 million SFH and building a brand new building that contains two homes that are affordable for middle class families. It literally makes no sense to a developer - the cost of construction alone makes it untenable.

This is what makes sense to a developer: tear down a $1 million dollar home and build two $1.5 million homes.

Maybe you should have this discussion with the "Soviet-style apartment blocks" PP.

Also, you're right, nobody will tear down a $1 million one-unit house to build a two-unit house. However, plenty of people will tear down a small, old one-unit house to build a large, new $1.5 million one-unit house. These same people would likely be willing to tear down a small, old one-unit house to build a large, new two-unit house at $1 million per unit.

I'll never understand why people who oppose building duplexes on SFH lots contrive the most ridiculous thought experiments as "proof" of why allowing those zoning changes doesn't make sense.

Fine - explain the economics of building duplexes in ward 3. To be credible, you need to include land and construction costs. I don’t see it, but maybe you can help me understand.

There is more to the DC area than just Ward 3. However, if you oppose duplexes in Ward 3, and nobody would do it anyway if it's allowed, then why would you care if it's allowed?

Because developers like you will come in - scoop up SFHs - and turn ward three into a hodgepodge of ugly multimillion duplexes. Literally the absolute worst of both worlds.

But how will that happen if building duplexes in Ward 3 doesn't make economic sense? Do you think developers will build duplexes to spite you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody has explained the economics behind building two homes on a single family lot. Those costs include getting approval to tear down a $1 million SFH and building a brand new building that contains two homes that are affordable for middle class families. It literally makes no sense to a developer - the cost of construction alone makes it untenable.

This is what makes sense to a developer: tear down a $1 million dollar home and build two $1.5 million homes.

Maybe you should have this discussion with the "Soviet-style apartment blocks" PP.

Also, you're right, nobody will tear down a $1 million one-unit house to build a two-unit house. However, plenty of people will tear down a small, old one-unit house to build a large, new $1.5 million one-unit house. These same people would likely be willing to tear down a small, old one-unit house to build a large, new two-unit house at $1 million per unit.

I'll never understand why people who oppose building duplexes on SFH lots contrive the most ridiculous thought experiments as "proof" of why allowing those zoning changes doesn't make sense.

Fine - explain the economics of building duplexes in ward 3. To be credible, you need to include land and construction costs. I don’t see it, but maybe you can help me understand.

There is more to the DC area than just Ward 3. However, if you oppose duplexes in Ward 3, and nobody would do it anyway if it's allowed, then why would you care if it's allowed?

Because developers like you will come in - scoop up SFHs - and turn ward three into a hodgepodge of ugly multimillion duplexes. Literally the absolute worst of both worlds.

So wait. Does it, or does it not, make economic sense for a person to build two-unit houses (aka duplexes) on lots currently occupied by one-unit houses (aka oneplexes) in Ward 3?

Because "it doesn't make economic sense to build duplexes in Ward 3" and "evil developers will build ugly duplexes all over Ward 3" can't both be true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most Americans live in cities so that 28 minute commute is a dream for most.

A commute is easier however when you aren’t the one driving (you’re sitting on a bus or a subway), no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody has explained the economics behind building two homes on a single family lot. Those costs include getting approval to tear down a $1 million SFH and building a brand new building that contains two homes that are affordable for middle class families. It literally makes no sense to a developer - the cost of construction alone makes it untenable.

This is what makes sense to a developer: tear down a $1 million dollar home and build two $1.5 million homes.

Maybe you should have this discussion with the "Soviet-style apartment blocks" PP.

Also, you're right, nobody will tear down a $1 million one-unit house to build a two-unit house. However, plenty of people will tear down a small, old one-unit house to build a large, new $1.5 million one-unit house. These same people would likely be willing to tear down a small, old one-unit house to build a large, new two-unit house at $1 million per unit.

I'll never understand why people who oppose building duplexes on SFH lots contrive the most ridiculous thought experiments as "proof" of why allowing those zoning changes doesn't make sense.

Fine - explain the economics of building duplexes in ward 3. To be credible, you need to include land and construction costs. I don’t see it, but maybe you can help me understand.

There is more to the DC area than just Ward 3. However, if you oppose duplexes in Ward 3, and nobody would do it anyway if it's allowed, then why would you care if it's allowed?

Because developers like you will come in - scoop up SFHs - and turn ward three into a hodgepodge of ugly multimillion duplexes. Literally the absolute worst of both worlds.

So wait. Does it, or does it not, make economic sense for a person to build two-unit houses (aka duplexes) on lots currently occupied by one-unit houses (aka oneplexes) in Ward 3?

Because "it doesn't make economic sense to build duplexes in Ward 3" and "evil developers will build ugly duplexes all over Ward 3" can't both be true.

Kudos to you for assuming that the PP is discussing this in good faith. You're a better person than most.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody has explained the economics behind building two homes on a single family lot. Those costs include getting approval to tear down a $1 million SFH and building a brand new building that contains two homes that are affordable for middle class families. It literally makes no sense to a developer - the cost of construction alone makes it untenable.

This is what makes sense to a developer: tear down a $1 million dollar home and build two $1.5 million homes.

Maybe you should have this discussion with the "Soviet-style apartment blocks" PP.

Also, you're right, nobody will tear down a $1 million one-unit house to build a two-unit house. However, plenty of people will tear down a small, old one-unit house to build a large, new $1.5 million one-unit house. These same people would likely be willing to tear down a small, old one-unit house to build a large, new two-unit house at $1 million per unit.

I'll never understand why people who oppose building duplexes on SFH lots contrive the most ridiculous thought experiments as "proof" of why allowing those zoning changes doesn't make sense.

Fine - explain the economics of building duplexes in ward 3. To be credible, you need to include land and construction costs. I don’t see it, but maybe you can help me understand.

There is more to the DC area than just Ward 3. However, if you oppose duplexes in Ward 3, and nobody would do it anyway if it's allowed, then why would you care if it's allowed?

Because developers like you will come in - scoop up SFHs - and turn ward three into a hodgepodge of ugly multimillion duplexes. Literally the absolute worst of both worlds.

So wait. Does it, or does it not, make economic sense for a person to build two-unit houses (aka duplexes) on lots currently occupied by one-unit houses (aka oneplexes) in Ward 3?

Because "it doesn't make economic sense to build duplexes in Ward 3" and "evil developers will build ugly duplexes all over Ward 3" can't both be true.

Well, I was looking at this in the context of affordable housing. If you don’t care if the duplexes are affordable than - of course - the economics make sense for developers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There is more to the DC area than just Ward 3. However, if you oppose duplexes in Ward 3, and nobody would do it anyway if it's allowed, then why would you care if it's allowed?

Because developers like you will come in - scoop up SFHs - and turn ward three into a hodgepodge of ugly multimillion duplexes. Literally the absolute worst of both worlds.

So wait. Does it, or does it not, make economic sense for a person to build two-unit houses (aka duplexes) on lots currently occupied by one-unit houses (aka oneplexes) in Ward 3?

Because "it doesn't make economic sense to build duplexes in Ward 3" and "evil developers will build ugly duplexes all over Ward 3" can't both be true.

Well, I was looking at this in the context of affordable housing. If you don’t care if the duplexes are affordable than - of course - the economics make sense for developers.

That's an all-over-the-place argument you're making, there. So, to start with, do you agree that it can make economic sense for people to build duplexes in Ward 3?

Also, why are we only talking about Ward 3?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most Americans live in cities so that 28 minute commute is a dream for most.

A commute is easier however when you aren’t the one driving (you’re sitting on a bus or a subway), no?

Or riding a bike! Bicycle commuters are the most satisfied with their commute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody has explained the economics behind building two homes on a single family lot. Those costs include getting approval to tear down a $1 million SFH and building a brand new building that contains two homes that are affordable for middle class families. It literally makes no sense to a developer - the cost of construction alone makes it untenable.

This is what makes sense to a developer: tear down a $1 million dollar home and build two $1.5 million homes.

Maybe you should have this discussion with the "Soviet-style apartment blocks" PP.

Also, you're right, nobody will tear down a $1 million one-unit house to build a two-unit house. However, plenty of people will tear down a small, old one-unit house to build a large, new $1.5 million one-unit house. These same people would likely be willing to tear down a small, old one-unit house to build a large, new two-unit house at $1 million per unit.

I'll never understand why people who oppose building duplexes on SFH lots contrive the most ridiculous thought experiments as "proof" of why allowing those zoning changes doesn't make sense.

Fine - explain the economics of building duplexes in ward 3. To be credible, you need to include land and construction costs. I don’t see it, but maybe you can help me understand.

There is more to the DC area than just Ward 3. However, if you oppose duplexes in Ward 3, and nobody would do it anyway if it's allowed, then why would you care if it's allowed?

Because developers like you will come in - scoop up SFHs - and turn ward three into a hodgepodge of ugly multimillion duplexes. Literally the absolute worst of both worlds.

So wait. Does it, or does it not, make economic sense for a person to build two-unit houses (aka duplexes) on lots currently occupied by one-unit houses (aka oneplexes) in Ward 3?

Because "it doesn't make economic sense to build duplexes in Ward 3" and "evil developers will build ugly duplexes all over Ward 3" can't both be true.

Well, I was looking at this in the context of affordable housing. If you don’t care if the duplexes are affordable than - of course - the economics make sense for developers.

It seems like you're conflating two concepts - affordable housing and housing affordability. Developers in Ward 3 are probably not going to start building duplexes that are affordable to families making 80% of AMI.

But, even building expensive duplexes helps make housing more affordable. A lot that housed one family now houses two. That second family might have chosen to live Arlington but for the availability of a duplex in Ward 3. Now, that house in Arlington has one fewer competing offers, allowing someone who would have had to live in Falls Church but for the less-competitive offers on a house in Arlington, and so on. Building additional housing has knock-on effects, even if the housing you're building is expensive.