Wisconsin Ave Development Project

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read yesterday that part of the new development at Upton Place will be used as a “temporary hotel” until more of the space is leased. That could be a long time given that City Ridge next door is still not leased after nearly two years. Why are we planning for thousands more expensive apartments in this part of town? The demand is not there.

Agree. And doubt there is much demand for a "pop up" hotel either.

Many units in NoMA that were to be condos have been converted to rentals. Thousands more in the pipeline.

Demand is flat. Prices are not yet dropping.

Does Upton Place have any of the retail leased yet?

Prices never really drop unless a city faces complete disaster (e.g. Detroit), but price increases have been slowing down in DC and that is specifically because DC has actually produced a lot of housing in the past few years. https://www.bisnow.com/washington-dc/news/multifamily/with-record-number-of-projects-leasing-up-dc-apartments-post-slow-rent-growth-120044

[Anonymous]

The housing we need is housing for people who can only afford to pay $1000/month max. You’re not going to get prices of market rate apartments to drop that low without a crisis. There would have to be an investment by the city in subsidized housing. Much better use of funds than the voucher program.

[Anonymous]

If there is over supply then why are people so up in arms about zoning changes? Nothing will get built if no $$$s can be made.

The market will solve the issue.

[Anonymous]

The housing we need is housing for people who can only afford to pay $1000/month max. You’re not going to get prices of market rate apartments to drop that low without a crisis. There would have to be an investment by the city in subsidized housing. Much better use of funds than the voucher program.

Exactly. The city has thousands of public housing units it already owns but which are uninhabitable. The inability to renovate and refurbish the existing DCHA stock is epic mismanagement by the Bowser administration. The solution---hand out vouchers---has as a practical matter forced the city's private landlords to become the providers of public housing because the District is incapable of getting actual public housing back into service.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If there is over supply then why are people so up in arms about zoning changes? Nothing will get built if no $$$s can be made.

The market will solve the issue.

Because when the market "solves" something it does so through destruction. It's the same reason we don't want the market to "solve" homelessness or poverty.

[Anonymous]

Decent, mixed-income public housing would be far far better than DC's existing voucher program, but the DCHA is clearly a nightmare that is incapable of building or running such places. In Vienna, even the middle and upper middle classes live in public housing!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there is over supply then why are people so up in arms about zoning changes? Nothing will get built if no $$$s can be made.

The market will solve the issue.

Because when the market "solves" something it does so through destruction. It's the same reason we don't want the market to "solve" homelessness or poverty.

Huh? How is the fact that developers can't make money building housing, because according to PP there is already too much housing...destruction?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there is over supply then why are people so up in arms about zoning changes? Nothing will get built if no $$$s can be made.

The market will solve the issue.

Because when the market "solves" something it does so through destruction. It's the same reason we don't want the market to "solve" homelessness or poverty.

How is it destruction to not build?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there is over supply then why are people so up in arms about zoning changes? Nothing will get built if no $$$s can be made.

The market will solve the issue.

Because when the market "solves" something it does so through destruction. It's the same reason we don't want the market to "solve" homelessness or poverty.

Huh? How is the fact that developers can't make money building housing, because according to PP there is already too much housing...destruction?

Don't you know that DC needs to jettison the Height Act so that developers can make more money... and build more market rate housing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The housing we need is housing for people who can only afford to pay $1000/month max. You’re not going to get prices of market rate apartments to drop that low without a crisis. There would have to be an investment by the city in subsidized housing. Much better use of funds than the voucher program.

Exactly. The city has thousands of public housing units it already owns but which are uninhabitable. The inability to renovate and refurbish the existing DCHA stock is epic mismanagement by the Bowser administration. The solution---hand out vouchers---has as a practical matter forced the city's private landlords to become the providers of public housing because the District is incapable of getting actual public housing back into service.

And the crime, disruptive behavior and social problems in the new "voucher villages" where voucher holders are concentrated have forced a lot of longtime tenants, often people in workforce jobs or on fixed incomes, to flee the buildings where they formerly found more affordable housing. Net-net, Bowser's voucher program may be making it harder, not easier, to maintain the existing stock affordable housing in areas like Ward 3, especially rent controlled units. One step forward, two steps back for DC.

[Anonymous]

Rates on Connecticut and Wisconsin were artificially inflated by the voucher program. No change in heights is needed, demand has not changed significantly. If DC managed to get their owned public housing back on line and if they altered the voucher program so it wasn't a draw for vagrants and addicts from across the country, the situation would be much improved.

[Anonymous]

I can’t wait to gentrify the upper Wisconsin corridor and price out all the boomers from their shacks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there is over supply then why are people so up in arms about zoning changes? Nothing will get built if no $$$s can be made.

The market will solve the issue.

Because when the market "solves" something it does so through destruction. It's the same reason we don't want the market to "solve" homelessness or poverty.

Huh? How is the fact that developers can't make money building housing, because according to PP there is already too much housing...destruction?

Don't you know that DC needs to jettison the Height Act so that developers can make more money... and build more market rate housing?

But if there is nobody to rent or buy that market-rate housing...why would anyone build it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there is over supply then why are people so up in arms about zoning changes? Nothing will get built if no $$$s can be made.

The market will solve the issue.

Because when the market "solves" something it does so through destruction. It's the same reason we don't want the market to "solve" homelessness or poverty.

Huh? How is the fact that developers can't make money building housing, because according to PP there is already too much housing...destruction?

Don't you know that DC needs to jettison the Height Act so that developers can make more money... and build more market rate housing?

God forbid anybody makes money when providing a good (housing) that people demand. Surely no other market does this…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Rates on Connecticut and Wisconsin were artificially inflated by the voucher program. No change in heights is needed, demand has not changed significantly. If DC managed to get their owned public housing back on line and if they altered the voucher program so it wasn't a draw for vagrants and addicts from across the country, the situation would be much improved.

Can DC borrow a page from "progressive" San Francisco and require drug testing for voucher holders? If recipients fail, they have to be in rehab to maintain these and other public benefits.