Arlington "missing middle"

[Anonymous]

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

If there were only 1/3rd of the current housing units in Manhattan do you think the average price of those would be higher or lower than the current average price?

[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.

They are already cashing out. The only question is what is replacing the old homes? Giant SFH vs. handful of units.

Why TF would there only be new white households?

[Anonymous]

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

So much ignorance. Didn't you take an econ class at some point?

[Anonymous]

Is there a limit on conversions to 2-4-6- plexes in the new regulations? A per year limit or per neighborhood association limit, or both? I've been told there is, but have not seen it anywhere in writing. Does anyone know or can link whether such limits exist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

So much ignorance. Didn't you take an econ class at some point?

The clueless crap that I read on DCUM by supposedly educated and high earning people is a window into the origin of our current state of affairs. Like these people have never dead a book or even browsed wikipedia before opining on anything and everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there a limit on conversions to 2-4-6- plexes in the new regulations? A per year limit or per neighborhood association limit, or both? I've been told there is, but have not seen it anywhere in writing. Does anyone know or can link whether such limits exist?

There isn’t a limit. But heythatwould have been a great idea!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

So much ignorance. Didn't you take an econ class at some point?

The clueless crap that I read on DCUM by supposedly educated and high earning people is a window into the origin of our current state of affairs. Like these people have never dead a book or even browsed wikipedia before opining on anything and everything.

DCUM isn't as homogeneous as you believe. There are some f-ing idiots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

So much ignorance. Didn't you take an econ class at some point?

The clueless crap that I read on DCUM by supposedly educated and high earning people is a window into the origin of our current state of affairs. Like these people have never dead a book or even browsed wikipedia before opining on anything and everything.

DCUM isn't as homogeneous as you believe. There are some f-ing idiots.

In addition to the f-ing idiots, there are posters on DCUM who are willfully ignorant, and are motivated to remain so by their bizarre desire to encase their neighborhood in amber and prevent any changes whatsoever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

So much ignorance. Didn't you take an econ class at some point?

The clueless crap that I read on DCUM by supposedly educated and high earning people is a window into the origin of our current state of affairs. Like these people have never dead a book or even browsed wikipedia before opining on anything and everything.

DCUM isn't as homogeneous as you believe. There are some f-ing idiots.

Educated/high-earning and idiot are not mutually exclusive categories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

So much ignorance. Didn't you take an econ class at some point?

The clueless crap that I read on DCUM by supposedly educated and high earning people is a window into the origin of our current state of affairs. Like these people have never dead a book or even browsed wikipedia before opining on anything and everything.

DCUM isn't as homogeneous as you believe. There are some f-ing idiots.

In addition to the f-ing idiots, there are posters on DCUM who are willfully ignorant, and are motivated to remain so by their bizarre desire to encase their neighborhood in amber and prevent any changes whatsoever.

Ah, I recognize you! Don’t you have anything else to do but post repeatedly all over DCUM and Nextdoor. Lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

So much ignorance. Didn't you take an econ class at some point?

The clueless crap that I read on DCUM by supposedly educated and high earning people is a window into the origin of our current state of affairs. Like these people have never dead a book or even browsed wikipedia before opining on anything and everything.

DCUM isn't as homogeneous as you believe. There are some f-ing idiots.

In addition to the f-ing idiots, there are posters on DCUM who are willfully ignorant, and are motivated to remain so by their bizarre desire to encase their neighborhood in amber and prevent any changes whatsoever.

How very Trumpy-Libertarian sounding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

So much ignorance. Didn't you take an econ class at some point?

The clueless crap that I read on DCUM by supposedly educated and high earning people is a window into the origin of our current state of affairs. Like these people have never dead a book or even browsed wikipedia before opining on anything and everything.

DCUM isn't as homogeneous as you believe. There are some f-ing idiots.

In addition to the f-ing idiots, there are posters on DCUM who are willfully ignorant, and are motivated to remain so by their bizarre desire to encase their neighborhood in amber and prevent any changes whatsoever.

Like the YIMBYs who are still peddling their BS without responding to anything with evidence or believable counter claims?

More unicorn fart and magical wishes policy making

Go back to the kiddies at YIMBY MoCo for another bucket of false conclusions and bad science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

So much ignorance. Didn't you take an econ class at some point?

The clueless crap that I read on DCUM by supposedly educated and high earning people is a window into the origin of our current state of affairs. Like these people have never dead a book or even browsed wikipedia before opining on anything and everything.

DCUM isn't as homogeneous as you believe. There are some f-ing idiots.

In addition to the f-ing idiots, there are posters on DCUM who are willfully ignorant, and are motivated to remain so by their bizarre desire to encase their neighborhood in amber and prevent any changes whatsoever.

Like the YIMBYs who are still peddling their BS without responding to anything with evidence or believable counter claims?

More unicorn fart and magical wishes policy making

Go back to the kiddies at YIMBY MoCo for another bucket of false conclusions and bad science.

There is a literal mountain of empirical research in peer-reviewed journals establishing the link between restrictive land use and housing prices. You're clearly one of the willfully ignorant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a limit on conversions to 2-4-6- plexes in the new regulations? A per year limit or per neighborhood association limit, or both? I've been told there is, but have not seen it anywhere in writing. Does anyone know or can link whether such limits exist?

There isn’t a limit. But heythatwould have been a great idea!

That’s incorrect. There’s a limit of 58 structures per year for five years, dispersed geographically. https://www.arlnow.com/2023/03/22/breaking-arlington-county-board-approves-missing-middle-zoning-changes/

After five years there is no limit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a limit on conversions to 2-4-6- plexes in the new regulations? A per year limit or per neighborhood association limit, or both? I've been told there is, but have not seen it anywhere in writing. Does anyone know or can link whether such limits exist?

There isn’t a limit. But heythatwould have been a great idea!

That’s incorrect. There’s a limit of 58 structures per year for five years, dispersed geographically. https://www.arlnow.com/2023/03/22/breaking-arlington-county-board-approves-missing-middle-zoning-changes/

After five years there is no limit.

They asked if there is a limit on conversions to 2/4/6 plexs. There isn’t. There is a limit on the number of MMH per year, but if they are all 6 plexs that’s no problem!