Missing Middle travesty in Arlington

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It always amazes me when people have such strong opinions about housing but don’t have any experience with development or housing policies. I have for almost 30 years in DC/VA/MD.

Missing middle, as a term of art, was initially coined to describe the middle income people who made too much to qualify for subsidized housing but didn’t make enough for what was considered an adequate size home to fit their particular family structure in an area somewhat close to where they worked or where connected to. Think 2 parent, 2 kid average size family as an example.

HUD produces average incomes every year per household size from 1-7+ people. The Washington/Baltimore area is considered at the highest level for income. Google it so you can see what the levels are. Typically for subsidized housing programs, the range is 30-80% of the average median income per household size for the area (DC). Ex: 4 person household must not make more than $106,800 in 2025 (that number often surprises people how high it is, but this is an expensive place to live).

Missing middle was aimed at helping those who don’t qualify for those low income programs but don’t make high enough to buy. One social concern is that this effects workforce housing, and that your teachers, nurses, law enforcement officers, etc cannot afford to buy/live reasonably close to where they work, so they have longer and longer commutes bc they have to buy so far away. And that increases the chance they’ll quit and change to a job closer to where they can afford to live, reducing the workforce and if they don’t quit they won’t be as committed because they have no connection to the community.

MM was never about tearing down a SFH and building multiple luxury THs. Ever. But here we are. Just call it density housing. But it’s disingenuous, incorrect and lying to stick a label on what missing middle actually is today.

I have 30+ years of experience with construction, civic associations, BZA, etc - in Arlington - and it was always about adding more density. Specifically, adding more middle-size housing options that weren’t as expensive as the skyrocketing SFHs.

Having some less expensive options could make ARL more accessible to more people. But it was never meant to be affordable housing or have some form of price control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lean Republican or right on most issues but would love to see missing middle housing in Virginia.

Even though the region has natural beauty living in Virginia felt like living in a massive office park with senseless sprawl, below average transit/transportation, relatively low amounts of public greenspace.

Very underwhelming area considered Arlington is 1 mile outside of the capital of the most powerful nation on Earth.

I think this is a troll. Most Republicans hate density and would never use a word like missing middle housing

Actual Republicans don’t hate density. They hate centralized planning and restrictions on economic development.

They absolutely do. I don't think you know that many because most of the dont want high density housing in their communities.

here you go: https://www.aei.org/research-products/testimony/achieving-housing-abundance-through-state-and-local-land-use-and-zoning-reform/

But to the extent you are arguing that NIMBY Dems fit stereotypes about Republicans they would otherwise deny- I can agree with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There’s always a disconnect in these MM discussions. Density is good, but it only makes sense with access to transit. I am in favor of changing zoning to exclude SFHs in areas that are easily walkable to metro, while leaving zoning in place for places that will never have realistic transit options.

For example, this listing https://redf.in/myRUVI should not be allowed. That lot should be designated only for multi family housing.

Whereas this listing is fine, because it makes no sense to start putting scattershot multi family homes in car-dependent locations. https://redf.in/4mQLxn

Or - we could actually improve transit too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lean Republican or right on most issues but would love to see missing middle housing in Virginia.

Even though the region has natural beauty living in Virginia felt like living in a massive office park with senseless sprawl, below average transit/transportation, relatively low amounts of public greenspace.

Very underwhelming area considered Arlington is 1 mile outside of the capital of the most powerful nation on Earth.

+1. I wish we could cut through partisan noise and have a coalition of people who see that dense housing and urban development are a good thing. There are some philosophical differences about the role of government (central planning of development vs more organic) but you and me both see that the NIMBY mindset is not working.

Why do people assume that increasingly density will lead to lower housing prices? DC has been getting more dense for decades. No one tears down a condo building to build a single family home. It would seem that, as supply goes up, so does demand, which means prices just keep going up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It always amazes me when people have such strong opinions about housing but don’t have any experience with development or housing policies. I have for almost 30 years in DC/VA/MD.

Missing middle, as a term of art, was initially coined to describe the middle income people who made too much to qualify for subsidized housing but didn’t make enough for what was considered an adequate size home to fit their particular family structure in an area somewhat close to where they worked or where connected to. Think 2 parent, 2 kid average size family as an example.

HUD produces average incomes every year per household size from 1-7+ people. The Washington/Baltimore area is considered at the highest level for income. Google it so you can see what the levels are. Typically for subsidized housing programs, the range is 30-80% of the average median income per household size for the area (DC). Ex: 4 person household must not make more than $106,800 in 2025 (that number often surprises people how high it is, but this is an expensive place to live).

Missing middle was aimed at helping those who don’t qualify for those low income programs but don’t make high enough to buy. One social concern is that this effects workforce housing, and that your teachers, nurses, law enforcement officers, etc cannot afford to buy/live reasonably close to where they work, so they have longer and longer commutes bc they have to buy so far away. And that increases the chance they’ll quit and change to a job closer to where they can afford to live, reducing the workforce and if they don’t quit they won’t be as committed because they have no connection to the community.

MM was never about tearing down a SFH and building multiple luxury THs. Ever. But here we are. Just call it density housing. But it’s disingenuous, incorrect and lying to stick a label on what missing middle actually is today.

I have 30+ years of experience with construction, civic associations, BZA, etc - in Arlington - and it was always about adding more density. Specifically, adding more middle-size housing options that weren’t as expensive as the skyrocketing SFHs.

Having some less expensive options could make ARL more accessible to more people. But it was never meant to be affordable housing or have some form of price control.

No, you’re wrong. I literally worked for HOC, ARHA, DCHFA, DHCD, HUD and state of Maryland in this exact space. It’s that’s not what missing middle originally was for or how it was being sold “to the public”. I know exactly why developers would want upzoning. Unless you have a 501c3 as the developer, NO developer is building multitasking with “less affordable” in mind. Now, there are municipal and state level programs that a developer can tap into to finance certain tax exempt financings, but I have never known a non501c3 to use one. Why? Because you’re not making money.

Where are the less expensive options to SFH? Expensive apartments? Expensive condos? Expensive THs? With all the amenities? We are just going to increase density for the rich? Blue maga?????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It always amazes me when people have such strong opinions about housing but don’t have any experience with development or housing policies. I have for almost 30 years in DC/VA/MD.

Missing middle, as a term of art, was initially coined to describe the middle income people who made too much to qualify for subsidized housing but didn’t make enough for what was considered an adequate size home to fit their particular family structure in an area somewhat close to where they worked or where connected to. Think 2 parent, 2 kid average size family as an example.

HUD produces average incomes every year per household size from 1-7+ people. The Washington/Baltimore area is considered at the highest level for income. Google it so you can see what the levels are. Typically for subsidized housing programs, the range is 30-80% of the average median income per household size for the area (DC). Ex: 4 person household must not make more than $106,800 in 2025 (that number often surprises people how high it is, but this is an expensive place to live).

Missing middle was aimed at helping those who don’t qualify for those low income programs but don’t make high enough to buy. One social concern is that this effects workforce housing, and that your teachers, nurses, law enforcement officers, etc cannot afford to buy/live reasonably close to where they work, so they have longer and longer commutes bc they have to buy so far away. And that increases the chance they’ll quit and change to a job closer to where they can afford to live, reducing the workforce and if they don’t quit they won’t be as committed because they have no connection to the community.

MM was never about tearing down a SFH and building multiple luxury THs. Ever. But here we are. Just call it density housing. But it’s disingenuous, incorrect and lying to stick a label on what missing middle actually is today.

I have 30+ years of experience with construction, civic associations, BZA, etc - in Arlington - and it was always about adding more density. Specifically, adding more middle-size housing options that weren’t as expensive as the skyrocketing SFHs.

Having some less expensive options could make ARL more accessible to more people. But it was never meant to be affordable housing or have some form of price control.

No, you’re wrong. I literally worked for HOC, ARHA, DCHFA, DHCD, HUD and state of Maryland in this exact space. It’s that’s not what missing middle originally was for or how it was being sold “to the public”. I know exactly why developers would want upzoning. Unless you have a 501c3 as the developer, NO developer is building multitasking with “less affordable” in mind. Now, there are municipal and state level programs that a developer can tap into to finance certain tax exempt financings, but I have never known a non501c3 to use one. Why? Because you’re not making money.

Where are the less expensive options to SFH? Expensive apartments? Expensive condos? Expensive THs? With all the amenities? We are just going to increase density for the rich? Blue maga?????

I know exactly how it was communicated to the public in Arlington because I was there. I have been very engaged for decades. Stop conflating whatever happened in MD with what happened in ARL.

Developers are in it to make money. It was always going to be free market prices/rent.

A TH is generally less expensive than a SFH. A condo is generally less expensive than a TH. The math isn’t that difficult to figure out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lean Republican or right on most issues but would love to see missing middle housing in Virginia.

Even though the region has natural beauty living in Virginia felt like living in a massive office park with senseless sprawl, below average transit/transportation, relatively low amounts of public greenspace.

Very underwhelming area considered Arlington is 1 mile outside of the capital of the most powerful nation on Earth.

+1. I wish we could cut through partisan noise and have a coalition of people who see that dense housing and urban development are a good thing. There are some philosophical differences about the role of government (central planning of development vs more organic) but you and me both see that the NIMBY mindset is not working.

Why do people assume that increasingly density will lead to lower housing prices? DC has been getting more dense for decades. No one tears down a condo building to build a single family home. It would seem that, as supply goes up, so does demand, which means prices just keep going up.

Increasing supply won’t lower housing prices.

But increasing supply of housing options that are less expensive than $$$$ SFHs increases the supply of less expensive options. Duh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lean Republican or right on most issues but would love to see missing middle housing in Virginia.

Even though the region has natural beauty living in Virginia felt like living in a massive office park with senseless sprawl, below average transit/transportation, relatively low amounts of public greenspace.

Very underwhelming area considered Arlington is 1 mile outside of the capital of the most powerful nation on Earth.

+1. I wish we could cut through partisan noise and have a coalition of people who see that dense housing and urban development are a good thing. There are some philosophical differences about the role of government (central planning of development vs more organic) but you and me both see that the NIMBY mindset is not working.

Why do people assume that increasingly density will lead to lower housing prices? DC has been getting more dense for decades. No one tears down a condo building to build a single family home. It would seem that, as supply goes up, so does demand, which means prices just keep going up.

Increasing supply won’t lower housing prices.

But increasing supply of housing options that are less expensive than $$$$ SFHs increases the supply of less expensive options. Duh.

I think you're missing the point. Increase them all you want. It doesnt mean they're going to remain less expensive. It could make them much more expensive.

Think of it this way: The more people who live in a given area, the more businesses will want to be there because they want a big pool of potential customers. The more businesses move into an area, the more people will want to live there. Which leads to more businesses wanting to move there. Which leads to more people wanting to live there. Which leads to more businesses, etc etc etc.

In that scenario, a one bedroom condo will cost a fortune (see: New York City)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lean Republican or right on most issues but would love to see missing middle housing in Virginia.

Even though the region has natural beauty living in Virginia felt like living in a massive office park with senseless sprawl, below average transit/transportation, relatively low amounts of public greenspace.

Very underwhelming area considered Arlington is 1 mile outside of the capital of the most powerful nation on Earth.

+1. I wish we could cut through partisan noise and have a coalition of people who see that dense housing and urban development are a good thing. There are some philosophical differences about the role of government (central planning of development vs more organic) but you and me both see that the NIMBY mindset is not working.

Why do people assume that increasingly density will lead to lower housing prices? DC has been getting more dense for decades. No one tears down a condo building to build a single family home. It would seem that, as supply goes up, so does demand, which means prices just keep going up.

How much do you think rent would be if those buildings had not been built?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lean Republican or right on most issues but would love to see missing middle housing in Virginia.

Even though the region has natural beauty living in Virginia felt like living in a massive office park with senseless sprawl, below average transit/transportation, relatively low amounts of public greenspace.

Very underwhelming area considered Arlington is 1 mile outside of the capital of the most powerful nation on Earth.

+1. I wish we could cut through partisan noise and have a coalition of people who see that dense housing and urban development are a good thing. There are some philosophical differences about the role of government (central planning of development vs more organic) but you and me both see that the NIMBY mindset is not working.

Why do people assume that increasingly density will lead to lower housing prices? DC has been getting more dense for decades. No one tears down a condo building to build a single family home. It would seem that, as supply goes up, so does demand, which means prices just keep going up.

Increasing supply won’t lower housing prices.

But increasing supply of housing options that are less expensive than $$$$ SFHs increases the supply of less expensive options. Duh.

I think you're missing the point. Increase them all you want. It doesnt mean they're going to remain less expensive. It could make them much more expensive.

Think of it this way: The more people who live in a given area, the more businesses will want to be there because they want a big pool of potential customers. The more businesses move into an area, the more people will want to live there. Which leads to more businesses wanting to move there. Which leads to more people wanting to live there. Which leads to more businesses, etc etc etc.

In that scenario, a one bedroom condo will cost a fortune (see: New York City)

Ok, and?

No one who has any experience with ARL housing had the expectation that missing middle would lower housing prices. It was just about increasing supply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lean Republican or right on most issues but would love to see missing middle housing in Virginia.

Even though the region has natural beauty living in Virginia felt like living in a massive office park with senseless sprawl, below average transit/transportation, relatively low amounts of public greenspace.

Very underwhelming area considered Arlington is 1 mile outside of the capital of the most powerful nation on Earth.

+1. I wish we could cut through partisan noise and have a coalition of people who see that dense housing and urban development are a good thing. There are some philosophical differences about the role of government (central planning of development vs more organic) but you and me both see that the NIMBY mindset is not working.

Why do people assume that increasingly density will lead to lower housing prices? DC has been getting more dense for decades. No one tears down a condo building to build a single family home. It would seem that, as supply goes up, so does demand, which means prices just keep going up.

Increasing supply won’t lower housing prices.

But increasing supply of housing options that are less expensive than $$$$ SFHs increases the supply of less expensive options. Duh.

I think you're missing the point. Increase them all you want. It doesnt mean they're going to remain less expensive. It could make them much more expensive.

Think of it this way: The more people who live in a given area, the more businesses will want to be there because they want a big pool of potential customers. The more businesses move into an area, the more people will want to live there. Which leads to more businesses wanting to move there. Which leads to more people wanting to live there. Which leads to more businesses, etc etc etc.

In that scenario, a one bedroom condo will cost a fortune (see: New York City)

Lol NYC is not a good example of housing production obviously.

Look to Tokyo - they create TONS of housing and hence it is affordable: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/11/opinion/editorials/tokyo-housing.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lean Republican or right on most issues but would love to see missing middle housing in Virginia.

Even though the region has natural beauty living in Virginia felt like living in a massive office park with senseless sprawl, below average transit/transportation, relatively low amounts of public greenspace.

Very underwhelming area considered Arlington is 1 mile outside of the capital of the most powerful nation on Earth.

+1. I wish we could cut through partisan noise and have a coalition of people who see that dense housing and urban development are a good thing. There are some philosophical differences about the role of government (central planning of development vs more organic) but you and me both see that the NIMBY mindset is not working.

Why do people assume that increasingly density will lead to lower housing prices? DC has been getting more dense for decades. No one tears down a condo building to build a single family home. It would seem that, as supply goes up, so does demand, which means prices just keep going up.

Increasing supply won’t lower housing prices.

But increasing supply of housing options that are less expensive than $$$$ SFHs increases the supply of less expensive options. Duh.

I think you're missing the point. Increase them all you want. It doesnt mean they're going to remain less expensive. It could make them much more expensive.

Think of it this way: The more people who live in a given area, the more businesses will want to be there because they want a big pool of potential customers. The more businesses move into an area, the more people will want to live there. Which leads to more businesses wanting to move there. Which leads to more people wanting to live there. Which leads to more businesses, etc etc etc.

In that scenario, a one bedroom condo will cost a fortune (see: New York City)

Lol NYC is not a good example of housing production obviously.

Look to Tokyo - they create TONS of housing and hence it is affordable: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/11/opinion/editorials/tokyo-housing.html

From the article:

“Two full-time workers earning Tokyo’s minimum wage can comfortably afford the average rent for a two-bedroom apartment in six of the city’s 23 wards. By contrast, two people working minimum-wage jobs cannot afford the average rent for a two-bedroom apartment in any of the 23 counties in the New York metropolitan area.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lean Republican or right on most issues but would love to see missing middle housing in Virginia.

Even though the region has natural beauty living in Virginia felt like living in a massive office park with senseless sprawl, below average transit/transportation, relatively low amounts of public greenspace.

Very underwhelming area considered Arlington is 1 mile outside of the capital of the most powerful nation on Earth.

+1. I wish we could cut through partisan noise and have a coalition of people who see that dense housing and urban development are a good thing. There are some philosophical differences about the role of government (central planning of development vs more organic) but you and me both see that the NIMBY mindset is not working.

Why do people assume that increasingly density will lead to lower housing prices? DC has been getting more dense for decades. No one tears down a condo building to build a single family home. It would seem that, as supply goes up, so does demand, which means prices just keep going up.

Increasing supply won’t lower housing prices.

But increasing supply of housing options that are less expensive than $$$$ SFHs increases the supply of less expensive options. Duh.

I think you're missing the point. Increase them all you want. It doesnt mean they're going to remain less expensive. It could make them much more expensive.

Think of it this way: The more people who live in a given area, the more businesses will want to be there because they want a big pool of potential customers. The more businesses move into an area, the more people will want to live there. Which leads to more businesses wanting to move there. Which leads to more people wanting to live there. Which leads to more businesses, etc etc etc.

In that scenario, a one bedroom condo will cost a fortune (see: New York City)

Lol NYC is not a good example of housing production obviously.

Look to Tokyo - they create TONS of housing and hence it is affordable: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/11/opinion/editorials/tokyo-housing.html

Y'all are obsessed with supply and completely ignore demand. You need both to arrive at a price. There's five million people in the DMV. Don't you think there's literally millions of people who would like to live in Arlington and have a nice short commute and live in a nice community with great schools? If you don't built enough supply to accommodate the demand (and you can't), then prices will only go up. Affordable housing in Arlington will never, ever happen, no matter what the government does.

[Anonymous]

I wish Arlington had passed a law that would trigger missing middle housing once it was allowed in other nearby counties. Arlington is too small to impact housing prices on its own. But if DC, Fairfax and MoCo also made changes, maybe as could get somewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I lean Republican or right on most issues but would love to see missing middle housing in Virginia.

Even though the region has natural beauty living in Virginia felt like living in a massive office park with senseless sprawl, below average transit/transportation, relatively low amounts of public greenspace.

Very underwhelming area considered Arlington is 1 mile outside of the capital of the most powerful nation on Earth.

+1. I wish we could cut through partisan noise and have a coalition of people who see that dense housing and urban development are a good thing. There are some philosophical differences about the role of government (central planning of development vs more organic) but you and me both see that the NIMBY mindset is not working.

Why do people assume that increasingly density will lead to lower housing prices? DC has been getting more dense for decades. No one tears down a condo building to build a single family home. It would seem that, as supply goes up, so does demand, which means prices just keep going up.

Increasing supply won’t lower housing prices.

But increasing supply of housing options that are less expensive than $$$$ SFHs increases the supply of less expensive options. Duh.

I think you're missing the point. Increase them all you want. It doesnt mean they're going to remain less expensive. It could make them much more expensive.

Think of it this way: The more people who live in a given area, the more businesses will want to be there because they want a big pool of potential customers. The more businesses move into an area, the more people will want to live there. Which leads to more businesses wanting to move there. Which leads to more people wanting to live there. Which leads to more businesses, etc etc etc.

In that scenario, a one bedroom condo will cost a fortune (see: New York City)

Lol NYC is not a good example of housing production obviously.

Look to Tokyo - they create TONS of housing and hence it is affordable: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/11/opinion/editorials/tokyo-housing.html

Y'all are obsessed with supply and completely ignore demand. You need both to arrive at a price. There's five million people in the DMV. Don't you think there's literally millions of people who would like to live in Arlington and have a nice short commute and live in a nice community with great schools? If you don't built enough supply to accommodate the demand (and you can't), then prices will only go up. Affordable housing in Arlington will never, ever happen, no matter what the government does.

Makes you wonder how the article's claim of only about a quarter of the wards in Tokyo being affordable might play out here. Ginza? Akihabara? (Not sure of spelling. For that matter, not sure of thr relative desirability, but taking neighborhoods I'd seen some time ago.) Are the closer-in areas of the city with nicer environs part of the 25% that exhibits affordability or of the 75% that doesn't? I'd guess the latter, and the same for any area that provides one set or other of desirable housing circumstances.

If you took farther out parts of SE & NE DC, some inner parts of PG, some more far-flung parts of the large surrounding suburban counties and much of the exurban counties, I'm pretty sure you'd find places with affordable rental housing stock. Maybe even 25% of the MSA.