Arlington "missing middle"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be clear, let's say you bought a row house in Georgetown that's been around for 200yrs. You shouldn't be upset if they tore down the houses across the street to build a high rise office building? Our neighborhood has been single family homes for 80yrs. This is different from changing school boundaries. It's fundamentally changing the character of a neighborhood.

You'd like us to think it's no different but living next to a 4-unit apartment IS different from living next to another single family home also with a yard and driveway. I get that you're okay with this, and clearly our county board is as well, but not all of us are.

You can be upset all you want. Your feelings are your feelings. You should feel your feelings. Plus, generally, people don't like change.

However, your feelings are not necessarily the basis of good housing policy. Especially when your feelings are: I am upset when things change, therefore things should not be allowed to change.

MMH isn’t the basis of good housing policy. 850k houses that could go to families are going to be torn down by developers to build one bedroom six plexs. Which we don’t need more of. MMH was initially sold as missing 2-3 bedroom housing opportunities for families to put their kids in North Arlington schools or for empty nesters to stay in the town they have lived in their whole life. EHO/MMH is NOT that. It’s just increased density for people that already have plenty of options in the vacant apartment buildings by the orange line. It’s going to be mega mansions or six plexs - goodbye normal sized, affordable homes and the families that would live in them.

The alternatives are:

1. Tearing down the 1,700 sf existing houses and replacing them with new single-unit 5,000 sf McMansions with 6 BR/6BA that sell for $2 million
2. Tearing down the 1,700 sf existing houses and replacing them with new six-unit buildings where each unit sells for $850,000

I think that alternative #2 is better.

The alternative you want - single-unit 1,700 sf existing houses that sell for $850,000 - does not exist.

And the position that people who live in apartments, or want to live in apartments, should just go live in the big apartment buildings 'by the orange line"? That's exactly what "missing middle" is about. Why should the only apartments in Arlington be in big apartment buildings?

In historic districts, it's much more difficult to tear down contributing structures for either McMansions or pseudo-"affordable" missing middle developments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A six to nine-unit building constructed as a matter of right on a SFH street makes it no longer a SFH street. This change will turbocharge the tear down phenomenon in Arlington, making yesterday's McMansions seem like backyard playhouses.

That’s exactly right. This zoning is outstanding for developers like me. It’s stunning to believe that it actually passed - no one would have thought this was a possibility 5 years ago. But society has changed a lot over that time. Consider the exponentially more traffic that will be speeding through your neighborhoods, and the loss of trees and tranquility as your punishment for voting for woke imbeciles, and your cowardice in waiting so long to challenge the zoning bc you were afraid of being called a racist. The legislation had so much steam at the end, that your reps passed it despite acknowledging it does not accomplish it’s intended purpose.

I’m a Marylander who works in Arlington and would consider moving there several years from now. Pretty sure this would push me out. It’s so stupid that people think this is somehow inclusive. Instead of overpriced SFH, there will be 6 overpriced condos in the same footprint, with no new streets and no new parking spaces. Overcrowded schools will become more overcrowded because no one built a new one prior to changing the laws and figuring out density. The SFHs will become more scarce and, therefore, more expensive.

This will not bring in some great mixed income diversity. I walk around Ballston. It’s the yuppiest place one could imagine. It will now just be full of more yuppies but now they won’t have even less spaces in which to park. These people actually think they did something inclusive. LOL

You can't be pushed out of somewhere you don't live in the first place.

Each of the six "overpriced" condos will cost less than the one "overpriced" single-unit detached house. In addition, together, those six condos will provide six times as many homes for people to live in.

Six times as many overpriced homes. The size will not mean these are now opportunities for people to move in who couldn’t afford it. It means younger yuppies will love in. The condos will still be expensive and the lack of SFH will drive up the cost of everything. When a house goes up in price, everything around it does too. You aren’t giving some single mom with 4 jobs an opportunity to live in Arlington. You’re giving an opportunity for a law student from a wealthy family to buy their first condo in Arlington. Or, more likely, a developer to rent 4 apartments.

What is bad about this?

Nothing is bad about it if you enjoy living in high density locations. Families who deliberately chose single family houses rather than living in Clarendon or Capitol Hill or similarly more urban or dense places chose not to live in those environments. It’s basically having the rug pulled out from under the type of area you chose to live in.

Yes, things change. (The climate, for example.) If you make a choice based on the assumption that nothing will ever change, you will be disappointed.

(Four-unit apartment buildings are "high density" now? How about that.)

Nice talking point. But how does "missing middle" help stop climate change, exactly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be clear, let's say you bought a row house in Georgetown that's been around for 200yrs. You shouldn't be upset if they tore down the houses across the street to build a high rise office building? Our neighborhood has been single family homes for 80yrs. This is different from changing school boundaries. It's fundamentally changing the character of a neighborhood.

You'd like us to think it's no different but living next to a 4-unit apartment IS different from living next to another single family home also with a yard and driveway. I get that you're okay with this, and clearly our county board is as well, but not all of us are.

You can be upset all you want. Your feelings are your feelings. You should feel your feelings. Plus, generally, people don't like change.

However, your feelings are not necessarily the basis of good housing policy. Especially when your feelings are: I am upset when things change, therefore things should not be allowed to change.

MMH isn’t the basis of good housing policy. 850k houses that could go to families are going to be torn down by developers to build one bedroom six plexs. Which we don’t need more of. MMH was initially sold as missing 2-3 bedroom housing opportunities for families to put their kids in North Arlington schools or for empty nesters to stay in the town they have lived in their whole life. EHO/MMH is NOT that. It’s just increased density for people that already have plenty of options in the vacant apartment buildings by the orange line. It’s going to be mega mansions or six plexs - goodbye normal sized, affordable homes and the families that would live in them.

The alternatives are:

1. Tearing down the 1,700 sf existing houses and replacing them with new single-unit 5,000 sf McMansions with 6 BR/6BA that sell for $2 million
2. Tearing down the 1,700 sf existing houses and replacing them with new six-unit buildings where each unit sells for $850,000

I think that alternative #2 is better.

The alternative you want - single-unit 1,700 sf existing houses that sell for $850,000 - does not exist.

And the position that people who live in apartments, or want to live in apartments, should just go live in the big apartment buildings 'by the orange line"? That's exactly what "missing middle" is about. Why should the only apartments in Arlington be in big apartment buildings?

So take a North ARL 6000 sq foot lot on a relatively narrow street with no sidewalks and put a 6 unit building in place of a SFH. Where do you put the cars?
If a couple is in 1 of the 6 units that can produce 2 cars or 10-12 per building. Just walking in North Arl we've noticed many of the teardowns have single width driveways and 1 car garages. Buying in North ARL was a mistake.

I'm starting to think the whole housing policy debate isn't about housing for people, it's about housing for cars.

Fortunately, if you think buying in North Arlington was a mistake, then it's most likely a mistake you can fix.

It's about parking for cars, and seats in schools for kids, and room in parks and on playing fields for kids and adults alike. Arlington CB doesn't care about infrastructure, it doesn't care about the character of its neighborhoods. It cares about development and developers. That's all.

People live in developments built by developers.

You are a real genius. Too bad you can’t address all the problems that additional density will cause without ever solving the problem it was intended to e.g. more affordable houses with 2-3 bedrooms for families to send their kids to N. Arlington schools, more affordable home ownership for people of color, opportunities for empty nesters to age in place. Just a bunch of renters who could live anywhere in the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A six to nine-unit building constructed as a matter of right on a SFH street makes it no longer a SFH street. This change will turbocharge the tear down phenomenon in Arlington, making yesterday's McMansions seem like backyard playhouses.

That’s exactly right. This zoning is outstanding for developers like me. It’s stunning to believe that it actually passed - no one would have thought this was a possibility 5 years ago. But society has changed a lot over that time. Consider the exponentially more traffic that will be speeding through your neighborhoods, and the loss of trees and tranquility as your punishment for voting for woke imbeciles, and your cowardice in waiting so long to challenge the zoning bc you were afraid of being called a racist. The legislation had so much steam at the end, that your reps passed it despite acknowledging it does not accomplish it’s intended purpose.

I’m a Marylander who works in Arlington and would consider moving there several years from now. Pretty sure this would push me out. It’s so stupid that people think this is somehow inclusive. Instead of overpriced SFH, there will be 6 overpriced condos in the same footprint, with no new streets and no new parking spaces. Overcrowded schools will become more overcrowded because no one built a new one prior to changing the laws and figuring out density. The SFHs will become more scarce and, therefore, more expensive.

This will not bring in some great mixed income diversity. I walk around Ballston. It’s the yuppiest place one could imagine. It will now just be full of more yuppies but now they won’t have even less spaces in which to park. These people actually think they did something inclusive. LOL

You can't be pushed out of somewhere you don't live in the first place.

Each of the six "overpriced" condos will cost less than the one "overpriced" single-unit detached house. In addition, together, those six condos will provide six times as many homes for people to live in.

Six times as many overpriced homes. The size will not mean these are now opportunities for people to move in who couldn’t afford it. It means younger yuppies will love in. The condos will still be expensive and the lack of SFH will drive up the cost of everything. When a house goes up in price, everything around it does too. You aren’t giving some single mom with 4 jobs an opportunity to live in Arlington. You’re giving an opportunity for a law student from a wealthy family to buy their first condo in Arlington. Or, more likely, a developer to rent 4 apartments.

What is bad about this?

Nothing is bad about it if you enjoy living in high density locations. Families who deliberately chose single family houses rather than living in Clarendon or Capitol Hill or similarly more urban or dense places chose not to live in those environments. It’s basically having the rug pulled out from under the type of area you chose to live in.

Yes, things change. (The climate, for example.) If you make a choice based on the assumption that nothing will ever change, you will be disappointed.

(Four-unit apartment buildings are "high density" now? How about that.)

Nice talking point. But how does "missing middle" help stop climate change, exactly?

DP. Could help people live closer to their jobs/schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be clear, let's say you bought a row house in Georgetown that's been around for 200yrs. You shouldn't be upset if they tore down the houses across the street to build a high rise office building? Our neighborhood has been single family homes for 80yrs. This is different from changing school boundaries. It's fundamentally changing the character of a neighborhood.

You'd like us to think it's no different but living next to a 4-unit apartment IS different from living next to another single family home also with a yard and driveway. I get that you're okay with this, and clearly our county board is as well, but not all of us are.

You can be upset all you want. Your feelings are your feelings. You should feel your feelings. Plus, generally, people don't like change.

However, your feelings are not necessarily the basis of good housing policy. Especially when your feelings are: I am upset when things change, therefore things should not be allowed to change.

MMH isn’t the basis of good housing policy. 850k houses that could go to families are going to be torn down by developers to build one bedroom six plexs. Which we don’t need more of. MMH was initially sold as missing 2-3 bedroom housing opportunities for families to put their kids in North Arlington schools or for empty nesters to stay in the town they have lived in their whole life. EHO/MMH is NOT that. It’s just increased density for people that already have plenty of options in the vacant apartment buildings by the orange line. It’s going to be mega mansions or six plexs - goodbye normal sized, affordable homes and the families that would live in them.

The alternatives are:

1. Tearing down the 1,700 sf existing houses and replacing them with new single-unit 5,000 sf McMansions with 6 BR/6BA that sell for $2 million
2. Tearing down the 1,700 sf existing houses and replacing them with new six-unit buildings where each unit sells for $850,000

I think that alternative #2 is better.

The alternative you want - single-unit 1,700 sf existing houses that sell for $850,000 - does not exist.

And the position that people who live in apartments, or want to live in apartments, should just go live in the big apartment buildings 'by the orange line"? That's exactly what "missing middle" is about. Why should the only apartments in Arlington be in big apartment buildings?

So take a North ARL 6000 sq foot lot on a relatively narrow street with no sidewalks and put a 6 unit building in place of a SFH. Where do you put the cars?
If a couple is in 1 of the 6 units that can produce 2 cars or 10-12 per building. Just walking in North Arl we've noticed many of the teardowns have single width driveways and 1 car garages. Buying in North ARL was a mistake.

I'm starting to think the whole housing policy debate isn't about housing for people, it's about housing for cars.

Fortunately, if you think buying in North Arlington was a mistake, then it's most likely a mistake you can fix.

It's about parking for cars, and seats in schools for kids, and room in parks and on playing fields for kids and adults alike. Arlington CB doesn't care about infrastructure, it doesn't care about the character of its neighborhoods. It cares about development and developers. That's all.

People live in developments built by developers.

You are a real genius. Too bad you can’t address all the problems that additional density will cause without ever solving the problem it was intended to e.g. more affordable houses with 2-3 bedrooms for families to send their kids to N. Arlington schools, more affordable home ownership for people of color, opportunities for empty nesters to age in place. Just a bunch of renters who could live anywhere in the county.

The problems it was intended to solve were:

1. there is not enough housing in Arlington
2. the range of options for housing in Arlington is too limited

Also, why are you disparaging renters?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be clear, let's say you bought a row house in Georgetown that's been around for 200yrs. You shouldn't be upset if they tore down the houses across the street to build a high rise office building? Our neighborhood has been single family homes for 80yrs. This is different from changing school boundaries. It's fundamentally changing the character of a neighborhood.

You'd like us to think it's no different but living next to a 4-unit apartment IS different from living next to another single family home also with a yard and driveway. I get that you're okay with this, and clearly our county board is as well, but not all of us are.

You can be upset all you want. Your feelings are your feelings. You should feel your feelings. Plus, generally, people don't like change.

However, your feelings are not necessarily the basis of good housing policy. Especially when your feelings are: I am upset when things change, therefore things should not be allowed to change.

MMH isn’t the basis of good housing policy. 850k houses that could go to families are going to be torn down by developers to build one bedroom six plexs. Which we don’t need more of. MMH was initially sold as missing 2-3 bedroom housing opportunities for families to put their kids in North Arlington schools or for empty nesters to stay in the town they have lived in their whole life. EHO/MMH is NOT that. It’s just increased density for people that already have plenty of options in the vacant apartment buildings by the orange line. It’s going to be mega mansions or six plexs - goodbye normal sized, affordable homes and the families that would live in them.

The alternatives are:

1. Tearing down the 1,700 sf existing houses and replacing them with new single-unit 5,000 sf McMansions with 6 BR/6BA that sell for $2 million
2. Tearing down the 1,700 sf existing houses and replacing them with new six-unit buildings where each unit sells for $850,000

I think that alternative #2 is better.

The alternative you want - single-unit 1,700 sf existing houses that sell for $850,000 - does not exist.

And the position that people who live in apartments, or want to live in apartments, should just go live in the big apartment buildings 'by the orange line"? That's exactly what "missing middle" is about. Why should the only apartments in Arlington be in big apartment buildings?

In historic districts, it's much more difficult to tear down contributing structures for either McMansions or pseudo-"affordable" missing middle developments.

The reality is that the "character of the neighborhood" has changed many many times over the years, both in historic Georgetown, as well as in non-historic pre-WWII and post-WWII Arlington. And it will continue to change, even if people try to stop it. That's not a threat or endorsement of any particular policy, it's just reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be clear, let's say you bought a row house in Georgetown that's been around for 200yrs. You shouldn't be upset if they tore down the houses across the street to build a high rise office building? Our neighborhood has been single family homes for 80yrs. This is different from changing school boundaries. It's fundamentally changing the character of a neighborhood.

You'd like us to think it's no different but living next to a 4-unit apartment IS different from living next to another single family home also with a yard and driveway. I get that you're okay with this, and clearly our county board is as well, but not all of us are.

You can be upset all you want. Your feelings are your feelings. You should feel your feelings. Plus, generally, people don't like change.

However, your feelings are not necessarily the basis of good housing policy. Especially when your feelings are: I am upset when things change, therefore things should not be allowed to change.

MMH isn’t the basis of good housing policy. 850k houses that could go to families are going to be torn down by developers to build one bedroom six plexs. Which we don’t need more of. MMH was initially sold as missing 2-3 bedroom housing opportunities for families to put their kids in North Arlington schools or for empty nesters to stay in the town they have lived in their whole life. EHO/MMH is NOT that. It’s just increased density for people that already have plenty of options in the vacant apartment buildings by the orange line. It’s going to be mega mansions or six plexs - goodbye normal sized, affordable homes and the families that would live in them.

The alternatives are:

1. Tearing down the 1,700 sf existing houses and replacing them with new single-unit 5,000 sf McMansions with 6 BR/6BA that sell for $2 million
2. Tearing down the 1,700 sf existing houses and replacing them with new six-unit buildings where each unit sells for $850,000

I think that alternative #2 is better.

The alternative you want - single-unit 1,700 sf existing houses that sell for $850,000 - does not exist.

And the position that people who live in apartments, or want to live in apartments, should just go live in the big apartment buildings 'by the orange line"? That's exactly what "missing middle" is about. Why should the only apartments in Arlington be in big apartment buildings?

In historic districts, it's much more difficult to tear down contributing structures for either McMansions or pseudo-"affordable" missing middle developments.

The reality is that the "character of the neighborhood" has changed many many times over the years, both in historic Georgetown, as well as in non-historic pre-WWII and post-WWII Arlington. And it will continue to change, even if people try to stop it. That's not a threat or endorsement of any particular policy, it's just reality.

Some change is possible. Infill constructions and additions are possible subject to review for compatibility with the historic context. Demolition of historic landmarks or contributing buildings in historic districts is almost never permitted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be clear, let's say you bought a row house in Georgetown that's been around for 200yrs. You shouldn't be upset if they tore down the houses across the street to build a high rise office building? Our neighborhood has been single family homes for 80yrs. This is different from changing school boundaries. It's fundamentally changing the character of a neighborhood.

You'd like us to think it's no different but living next to a 4-unit apartment IS different from living next to another single family home also with a yard and driveway. I get that you're okay with this, and clearly our county board is as well, but not all of us are.

You can be upset all you want. Your feelings are your feelings. You should feel your feelings. Plus, generally, people don't like change.

However, your feelings are not necessarily the basis of good housing policy. Especially when your feelings are: I am upset when things change, therefore things should not be allowed to change.

MMH isn’t the basis of good housing policy. 850k houses that could go to families are going to be torn down by developers to build one bedroom six plexs. Which we don’t need more of. MMH was initially sold as missing 2-3 bedroom housing opportunities for families to put their kids in North Arlington schools or for empty nesters to stay in the town they have lived in their whole life. EHO/MMH is NOT that. It’s just increased density for people that already have plenty of options in the vacant apartment buildings by the orange line. It’s going to be mega mansions or six plexs - goodbye normal sized, affordable homes and the families that would live in them.

The alternatives are:

1. Tearing down the 1,700 sf existing houses and replacing them with new single-unit 5,000 sf McMansions with 6 BR/6BA that sell for $2 million
2. Tearing down the 1,700 sf existing houses and replacing them with new six-unit buildings where each unit sells for $850,000

I think that alternative #2 is better.

The alternative you want - single-unit 1,700 sf existing houses that sell for $850,000 - does not exist.

And the position that people who live in apartments, or want to live in apartments, should just go live in the big apartment buildings 'by the orange line"? That's exactly what "missing middle" is about. Why should the only apartments in Arlington be in big apartment buildings?

So take a North ARL 6000 sq foot lot on a relatively narrow street with no sidewalks and put a 6 unit building in place of a SFH. Where do you put the cars?
If a couple is in 1 of the 6 units that can produce 2 cars or 10-12 per building. Just walking in North Arl we've noticed many of the teardowns have single width driveways and 1 car garages. Buying in North ARL was a mistake.

I'm starting to think the whole housing policy debate isn't about housing for people, it's about housing for cars.

Fortunately, if you think buying in North Arlington was a mistake, then it's most likely a mistake you can fix.

It's about parking for cars, and seats in schools for kids, and room in parks and on playing fields for kids and adults alike. Arlington CB doesn't care about infrastructure, it doesn't care about the character of its neighborhoods. It cares about development and developers. That's all.

People live in developments built by developers.

You are a real genius. Too bad you can’t address all the problems that additional density will cause without ever solving the problem it was intended to e.g. more affordable houses with 2-3 bedrooms for families to send their kids to N. Arlington schools, more affordable home ownership for people of color, opportunities for empty nesters to age in place. Just a bunch of renters who could live anywhere in the county.

Developers and so-called "Urbanists" prattle on about how density, infill, uupzoning, etc. will solve affordability, add diversity, help families and fight climate change. Yet developers just build more of the same high-end market rate flats for singles and couples, with faux-quartz countertops and a shared bike station out front. They can fool the public up to a point, but then not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be clear, let's say you bought a row house in Georgetown that's been around for 200yrs. You shouldn't be upset if they tore down the houses across the street to build a high rise office building? Our neighborhood has been single family homes for 80yrs. This is different from changing school boundaries. It's fundamentally changing the character of a neighborhood.

You'd like us to think it's no different but living next to a 4-unit apartment IS different from living next to another single family home also with a yard and driveway. I get that you're okay with this, and clearly our county board is as well, but not all of us are.

You can be upset all you want. Your feelings are your feelings. You should feel your feelings. Plus, generally, people don't like change.

However, your feelings are not necessarily the basis of good housing policy. Especially when your feelings are: I am upset when things change, therefore things should not be allowed to change.

MMH isn’t the basis of good housing policy. 850k houses that could go to families are going to be torn down by developers to build one bedroom six plexs. Which we don’t need more of. MMH was initially sold as missing 2-3 bedroom housing opportunities for families to put their kids in North Arlington schools or for empty nesters to stay in the town they have lived in their whole life. EHO/MMH is NOT that. It’s just increased density for people that already have plenty of options in the vacant apartment buildings by the orange line. It’s going to be mega mansions or six plexs - goodbye normal sized, affordable homes and the families that would live in them.

The alternatives are:

1. Tearing down the 1,700 sf existing houses and replacing them with new single-unit 5,000 sf McMansions with 6 BR/6BA that sell for $2 million
2. Tearing down the 1,700 sf existing houses and replacing them with new six-unit buildings where each unit sells for $850,000

I think that alternative #2 is better.

The alternative you want - single-unit 1,700 sf existing houses that sell for $850,000 - does not exist.

And the position that people who live in apartments, or want to live in apartments, should just go live in the big apartment buildings 'by the orange line"? That's exactly what "missing middle" is about. Why should the only apartments in Arlington be in big apartment buildings?

In historic districts, it's much more difficult to tear down contributing structures for either McMansions or pseudo-"affordable" missing middle developments.

The reality is that the "character of the neighborhood" has changed many many times over the years, both in historic Georgetown, as well as in non-historic pre-WWII and post-WWII Arlington. And it will continue to change, even if people try to stop it. That's not a threat or endorsement of any particular policy, it's just reality.

Some change is possible. Infill constructions and additions are possible subject to review for compatibility with the historic context. Demolition of historic landmarks or contributing buildings in historic districts is almost never permitted.

Transformer statues are also not permitted. Cars, on the other hand, are permitted. There's a change in the "character of the neighborhood" right there. Not to mention the changes in who lives in Georgetown, over the centuries. Why are you talking about the Georgetown Historic District in a post about missing middle housing policy in Arlington?

[Anonymous]

I thought you need 0.5 parking spaces per unit near metros and 1 space per unit further away. Is that not correct?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be clear, let's say you bought a row house in Georgetown that's been around for 200yrs. You shouldn't be upset if they tore down the houses across the street to build a high rise office building? Our neighborhood has been single family homes for 80yrs. This is different from changing school boundaries. It's fundamentally changing the character of a neighborhood.

You'd like us to think it's no different but living next to a 4-unit apartment IS different from living next to another single family home also with a yard and driveway. I get that you're okay with this, and clearly our county board is as well, but not all of us are.

You can be upset all you want. Your feelings are your feelings. You should feel your feelings. Plus, generally, people don't like change.

However, your feelings are not necessarily the basis of good housing policy. Especially when your feelings are: I am upset when things change, therefore things should not be allowed to change.

MMH isn’t the basis of good housing policy. 850k houses that could go to families are going to be torn down by developers to build one bedroom six plexs. Which we don’t need more of. MMH was initially sold as missing 2-3 bedroom housing opportunities for families to put their kids in North Arlington schools or for empty nesters to stay in the town they have lived in their whole life. EHO/MMH is NOT that. It’s just increased density for people that already have plenty of options in the vacant apartment buildings by the orange line. It’s going to be mega mansions or six plexs - goodbye normal sized, affordable homes and the families that would live in them.

The alternatives are:

1. Tearing down the 1,700 sf existing houses and replacing them with new single-unit 5,000 sf McMansions with 6 BR/6BA that sell for $2 million
2. Tearing down the 1,700 sf existing houses and replacing them with new six-unit buildings where each unit sells for $850,000

I think that alternative #2 is better.

The alternative you want - single-unit 1,700 sf existing houses that sell for $850,000 - does not exist.

And the position that people who live in apartments, or want to live in apartments, should just go live in the big apartment buildings 'by the orange line"? That's exactly what "missing middle" is about. Why should the only apartments in Arlington be in big apartment buildings?

So take a North ARL 6000 sq foot lot on a relatively narrow street with no sidewalks and put a 6 unit building in place of a SFH. Where do you put the cars?
If a couple is in 1 of the 6 units that can produce 2 cars or 10-12 per building. Just walking in North Arl we've noticed many of the teardowns have single width driveways and 1 car garages. Buying in North ARL was a mistake.

I'm starting to think the whole housing policy debate isn't about housing for people, it's about housing for cars.

Fortunately, if you think buying in North Arlington was a mistake, then it's most likely a mistake you can fix.

It's about parking for cars, and seats in schools for kids, and room in parks and on playing fields for kids and adults alike. Arlington CB doesn't care about infrastructure, it doesn't care about the character of its neighborhoods. It cares about development and developers. That's all.

People live in developments built by developers.

You are a real genius. Too bad you can’t address all the problems that additional density will cause without ever solving the problem it was intended to e.g. more affordable houses with 2-3 bedrooms for families to send their kids to N. Arlington schools, more affordable home ownership for people of color, opportunities for empty nesters to age in place. Just a bunch of renters who could live anywhere in the county.

The problems it was intended to solve were:

1. there is not enough housing in Arlington
2. the range of options for housing in Arlington is too limited

Also, why are you disparaging renters?

When missing middle was being considered, it was interesting how the TV local news coverage said it was intended to remedy past exclusionary zoning. So much obfuscation. Arlington will become less diverse, not more. I gotta hand it to the developers for saying whatever it took to get buy-in from so many people, even if it was mostly lies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be clear, let's say you bought a row house in Georgetown that's been around for 200yrs. You shouldn't be upset if they tore down the houses across the street to build a high rise office building? Our neighborhood has been single family homes for 80yrs. This is different from changing school boundaries. It's fundamentally changing the character of a neighborhood.

You'd like us to think it's no different but living next to a 4-unit apartment IS different from living next to another single family home also with a yard and driveway. I get that you're okay with this, and clearly our county board is as well, but not all of us are.

You can be upset all you want. Your feelings are your feelings. You should feel your feelings. Plus, generally, people don't like change.

However, your feelings are not necessarily the basis of good housing policy. Especially when your feelings are: I am upset when things change, therefore things should not be allowed to change.

MMH isn’t the basis of good housing policy. 850k houses that could go to families are going to be torn down by developers to build one bedroom six plexs. Which we don’t need more of. MMH was initially sold as missing 2-3 bedroom housing opportunities for families to put their kids in North Arlington schools or for empty nesters to stay in the town they have lived in their whole life. EHO/MMH is NOT that. It’s just increased density for people that already have plenty of options in the vacant apartment buildings by the orange line. It’s going to be mega mansions or six plexs - goodbye normal sized, affordable homes and the families that would live in them.

The alternatives are:

1. Tearing down the 1,700 sf existing houses and replacing them with new single-unit 5,000 sf McMansions with 6 BR/6BA that sell for $2 million
2. Tearing down the 1,700 sf existing houses and replacing them with new six-unit buildings where each unit sells for $850,000

I think that alternative #2 is better.

The alternative you want - single-unit 1,700 sf existing houses that sell for $850,000 - does not exist.

And the position that people who live in apartments, or want to live in apartments, should just go live in the big apartment buildings 'by the orange line"? That's exactly what "missing middle" is about. Why should the only apartments in Arlington be in big apartment buildings?

So take a North ARL 6000 sq foot lot on a relatively narrow street with no sidewalks and put a 6 unit building in place of a SFH. Where do you put the cars?
If a couple is in 1 of the 6 units that can produce 2 cars or 10-12 per building. Just walking in North Arl we've noticed many of the teardowns have single width driveways and 1 car garages. Buying in North ARL was a mistake.

I'm starting to think the whole housing policy debate isn't about housing for people, it's about housing for cars.

Fortunately, if you think buying in North Arlington was a mistake, then it's most likely a mistake you can fix.

It's about parking for cars, and seats in schools for kids, and room in parks and on playing fields for kids and adults alike. Arlington CB doesn't care about infrastructure, it doesn't care about the character of its neighborhoods. It cares about development and developers. That's all.

People live in developments built by developers.

You are a real genius. Too bad you can’t address all the problems that additional density will cause without ever solving the problem it was intended to e.g. more affordable houses with 2-3 bedrooms for families to send their kids to N. Arlington schools, more affordable home ownership for people of color, opportunities for empty nesters to age in place. Just a bunch of renters who could live anywhere in the county.

The problems it was intended to solve were:

1. there is not enough housing in Arlington
2. the range of options for housing in Arlington is too limited

Also, why are you disparaging renters?

When missing middle was being considered, it was interesting how the TV local news coverage said it was intended to remedy past exclusionary zoning. So much obfuscation. Arlington will become less diverse, not more. I gotta hand it to the developers for saying whatever it took to get buy-in from so many people, even if it was mostly lies.

Huh? Restricting new construction to just $$$$$ SFHs doesn’t increase diversity. Offering up more options to more people is more likely to increase diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be clear, let's say you bought a row house in Georgetown that's been around for 200yrs. You shouldn't be upset if they tore down the houses across the street to build a high rise office building? Our neighborhood has been single family homes for 80yrs. This is different from changing school boundaries. It's fundamentally changing the character of a neighborhood.

You'd like us to think it's no different but living next to a 4-unit apartment IS different from living next to another single family home also with a yard and driveway. I get that you're okay with this, and clearly our county board is as well, but not all of us are.

You can be upset all you want. Your feelings are your feelings. You should feel your feelings. Plus, generally, people don't like change.

However, your feelings are not necessarily the basis of good housing policy. Especially when your feelings are: I am upset when things change, therefore things should not be allowed to change.

MMH isn’t the basis of good housing policy. 850k houses that could go to families are going to be torn down by developers to build one bedroom six plexs. Which we don’t need more of. MMH was initially sold as missing 2-3 bedroom housing opportunities for families to put their kids in North Arlington schools or for empty nesters to stay in the town they have lived in their whole life. EHO/MMH is NOT that. It’s just increased density for people that already have plenty of options in the vacant apartment buildings by the orange line. It’s going to be mega mansions or six plexs - goodbye normal sized, affordable homes and the families that would live in them.

The alternatives are:

1. Tearing down the 1,700 sf existing houses and replacing them with new single-unit 5,000 sf McMansions with 6 BR/6BA that sell for $2 million
2. Tearing down the 1,700 sf existing houses and replacing them with new six-unit buildings where each unit sells for $850,000

I think that alternative #2 is better.

The alternative you want - single-unit 1,700 sf existing houses that sell for $850,000 - does not exist.

And the position that people who live in apartments, or want to live in apartments, should just go live in the big apartment buildings 'by the orange line"? That's exactly what "missing middle" is about. Why should the only apartments in Arlington be in big apartment buildings?

So take a North ARL 6000 sq foot lot on a relatively narrow street with no sidewalks and put a 6 unit building in place of a SFH. Where do you put the cars?
If a couple is in 1 of the 6 units that can produce 2 cars or 10-12 per building. Just walking in North Arl we've noticed many of the teardowns have single width driveways and 1 car garages. Buying in North ARL was a mistake.

I'm starting to think the whole housing policy debate isn't about housing for people, it's about housing for cars.

Fortunately, if you think buying in North Arlington was a mistake, then it's most likely a mistake you can fix.

It's about parking for cars, and seats in schools for kids, and room in parks and on playing fields for kids and adults alike. Arlington CB doesn't care about infrastructure, it doesn't care about the character of its neighborhoods. It cares about development and developers. That's all.

People live in developments built by developers.

You are a real genius. Too bad you can’t address all the problems that additional density will cause without ever solving the problem it was intended to e.g. more affordable houses with 2-3 bedrooms for families to send their kids to N. Arlington schools, more affordable home ownership for people of color, opportunities for empty nesters to age in place. Just a bunch of renters who could live anywhere in the county.

The problems it was intended to solve were:

1. there is not enough housing in Arlington
2. the range of options for housing in Arlington is too limited

Also, why are you disparaging renters?

When missing middle was being considered, it was interesting how the TV local news coverage said it was intended to remedy past exclusionary zoning. So much obfuscation. Arlington will become less diverse, not more. I gotta hand it to the developers for saying whatever it took to get buy-in from so many people, even if it was mostly lies.

Huh? Restricting new construction to just $$$$$ SFHs doesn’t increase diversity. Offering up more options to more people is more likely to increase diversity.

1. Longtime Arlington residents cash out to developers.
2. Instead of one new white household, you get 2-6 new white households.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be clear, let's say you bought a row house in Georgetown that's been around for 200yrs. You shouldn't be upset if they tore down the houses across the street to build a high rise office building? Our neighborhood has been single family homes for 80yrs. This is different from changing school boundaries. It's fundamentally changing the character of a neighborhood.

You'd like us to think it's no different but living next to a 4-unit apartment IS different from living next to another single family home also with a yard and driveway. I get that you're okay with this, and clearly our county board is as well, but not all of us are.

You can be upset all you want. Your feelings are your feelings. You should feel your feelings. Plus, generally, people don't like change.

However, your feelings are not necessarily the basis of good housing policy. Especially when your feelings are: I am upset when things change, therefore things should not be allowed to change.

MMH isn’t the basis of good housing policy. 850k houses that could go to families are going to be torn down by developers to build one bedroom six plexs. Which we don’t need more of. MMH was initially sold as missing 2-3 bedroom housing opportunities for families to put their kids in North Arlington schools or for empty nesters to stay in the town they have lived in their whole life. EHO/MMH is NOT that. It’s just increased density for people that already have plenty of options in the vacant apartment buildings by the orange line. It’s going to be mega mansions or six plexs - goodbye normal sized, affordable homes and the families that would live in them.

The alternatives are:

1. Tearing down the 1,700 sf existing houses and replacing them with new single-unit 5,000 sf McMansions with 6 BR/6BA that sell for $2 million
2. Tearing down the 1,700 sf existing houses and replacing them with new six-unit buildings where each unit sells for $850,000

I think that alternative #2 is better.

The alternative you want - single-unit 1,700 sf existing houses that sell for $850,000 - does not exist.

And the position that people who live in apartments, or want to live in apartments, should just go live in the big apartment buildings 'by the orange line"? That's exactly what "missing middle" is about. Why should the only apartments in Arlington be in big apartment buildings?

So take a North ARL 6000 sq foot lot on a relatively narrow street with no sidewalks and put a 6 unit building in place of a SFH. Where do you put the cars?
If a couple is in 1 of the 6 units that can produce 2 cars or 10-12 per building. Just walking in North Arl we've noticed many of the teardowns have single width driveways and 1 car garages. Buying in North ARL was a mistake.

I'm starting to think the whole housing policy debate isn't about housing for people, it's about housing for cars.

Fortunately, if you think buying in North Arlington was a mistake, then it's most likely a mistake you can fix.

It's about parking for cars, and seats in schools for kids, and room in parks and on playing fields for kids and adults alike. Arlington CB doesn't care about infrastructure, it doesn't care about the character of its neighborhoods. It cares about development and developers. That's all.

People live in developments built by developers.

You are a real genius. Too bad you can’t address all the problems that additional density will cause without ever solving the problem it was intended to e.g. more affordable houses with 2-3 bedrooms for families to send their kids to N. Arlington schools, more affordable home ownership for people of color, opportunities for empty nesters to age in place. Just a bunch of renters who could live anywhere in the county.

The problems it was intended to solve were:

1. there is not enough housing in Arlington
2. the range of options for housing in Arlington is too limited

Also, why are you disparaging renters?

When missing middle was being considered, it was interesting how the TV local news coverage said it was intended to remedy past exclusionary zoning. So much obfuscation. Arlington will become less diverse, not more. I gotta hand it to the developers for saying whatever it took to get buy-in from so many people, even if it was mostly lies.

Huh? Restricting new construction to just $$$$$ SFHs doesn’t increase diversity. Offering up more options to more people is more likely to increase diversity.

1. Longtime Arlington residents cash out to developers.
2. Instead of one new white household, you get 2-6 new white households.

Because only white people want to live in North Arlington? Because property owners in North Arlington will only sell or rent to white people? That seems like a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If cramming housing in to every square inch makes a place affordable, explain Manhattan to us.

Demand exceeds supply. Next question?