Missing middle- Arlington

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So called missing middle is a hypocritical and contradictory admission from urbanists that they don’t actually want density.

If they did, they would stick with a giant high rise, but it turns out they don’t want that. They want SFHs.

They can’t afford that though, so they are demanding in their minds the next best thing, because what they want (despite claims otherwise) is unobtainable.

Then when they’re done destroying your neighborhood, turning it into a slum, they’ll leave because they were never committed to the community in the first place.

Rinse, repeat.

+1. This summarizes it so perfectly.

You guys really think your neighborhoods will become “slums?”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So called missing middle is a hypocritical and contradictory admission from urbanists that they don’t actually want density.

If they did, they would stick with a giant high rise, but it turns out they don’t want that. They want SFHs.

They can’t afford that though, so they are demanding in their minds the next best thing, because what they want (despite claims otherwise) is unobtainable.

Then when they’re done destroying your neighborhood, turning it into a slum, they’ll leave because they were never committed to the community in the first place.

Rinse, repeat.

+1. This summarizes it so perfectly.

You guys really think your neighborhoods will become “slums?”

I live on a street one block long in Cherrydale with 7 unexpanded original SFHs. If all of those are turned into a 6plex--which is likely over time--the street will absolutely be slum like. There won't be enough parking (by far). The sidewalks won't be wide enough for the increased pedestrians. The street won't be wide enough to handle the increased traffic. There won't be any yards or large trees. Most or all of those units will be renters. The neighborhood was built on a small pre-WW2 scale that already has cars have to pull over to pass each other and people step into the street to let others pass on the sidewalk. It was not sized to accommodate that density. It's not good.

Nearly all of the other neighborhood streets just happen to have houses that were already expanded with additions or are New Builds. But, just by chance, our street has a lot of original homes that will be targeted by builders. It will be a little slum in the middle of a SFH neighborhood.

Larger buildings with several units should on bigger streets with bigger sidewalks and near public transit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So begins the decline of Arlington. More people will choose McLean or Bethesda once they see how neighborhoods get transformed by this stupidity.

I don’t think this will happen. I think people will continue to want Arlington for their commutes, or being near amenities, etc. Many of us may go private (like our family). But Arlington is still going to be desirable.

For many people, the dream of owning a SFH is about being on a quiet, peaceful street relatively free of density, not one clogged with cars and people. If people want density, they choose a townhouse or condo. Make no mistake, many people's property values will be negatively impacted.

It's like when you're considering buying a house, but the one next door has all the hallmarks of being inhabited by a hoarder (stuff all over the lawn and backyard, poorly cared for) -- you take a pass and wait for something better to come along. No different here.

Yesterday I literally had someone tell me they chose a SFH in Arlington bc it reminded them of a “city.” The home buying demographic is changing. People are valuing different things.

Umm, OK. If someone wants a "city," there are SFHs in the "city" of DC. Arlington is a suburb.

The densest census district in the entire DMV isn’t even in DC. It’s Ballston. Like it or not, Arlington isn’t a suburb anymore.

Ballston is a very small part of Arlington. The majority of Arlington is a very residential community feel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So called missing middle is a hypocritical and contradictory admission from urbanists that they don’t actually want density.

If they did, they would stick with a giant high rise, but it turns out they don’t want that. They want SFHs.

They can’t afford that though, so they are demanding in their minds the next best thing, because what they want (despite claims otherwise) is unobtainable.

Then when they’re done destroying your neighborhood, turning it into a slum, they’ll leave because they were never committed to the community in the first place.

Rinse, repeat.

+1. This summarizes it so perfectly.

You guys really think your neighborhoods will become “slums?”

I live on a street one block long in Cherrydale with 7 unexpanded original SFHs. If all of those are turned into a 6plex--which is likely over time--the street will absolutely be slum like. There won't be enough parking (by far). The sidewalks won't be wide enough for the increased pedestrians. The street won't be wide enough to handle the increased traffic. There won't be any yards or large trees. Most or all of those units will be renters. The neighborhood was built on a small pre-WW2 scale that already has cars have to pull over to pass each other and people step into the street to let others pass on the sidewalk. It was not sized to accommodate that density. It's not good.

Nearly all of the other neighborhood streets just happen to have houses that were already expanded with additions or are New Builds. But, just by chance, our street has a lot of original homes that will be targeted by builders. It will be a little slum in the middle of a SFH neighborhood.

Larger buildings with several units should on bigger streets with bigger sidewalks and near public transit.

You’re actually very near a metro stop and def near bus stops. Many many streets in that area also have yield streets. Most sidewalks can’t accommodate people in 2 directions without a step to the side. This is pretty normal stuff. I am not sure what you think a slum looks like, but I don’t think that will happen to your street.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So called missing middle is a hypocritical and contradictory admission from urbanists that they don’t actually want density.

If they did, they would stick with a giant high rise, but it turns out they don’t want that. They want SFHs.

They can’t afford that though, so they are demanding in their minds the next best thing, because what they want (despite claims otherwise) is unobtainable.

Then when they’re done destroying your neighborhood, turning it into a slum, they’ll leave because they were never committed to the community in the first place.

Rinse, repeat.

+1. This summarizes it so perfectly.

You guys really think your neighborhoods will become “slums?”

I live on a street one block long in Cherrydale with 7 unexpanded original SFHs. If all of those are turned into a 6plex--which is likely over time--the street will absolutely be slum like. There won't be enough parking (by far). The sidewalks won't be wide enough for the increased pedestrians. The street won't be wide enough to handle the increased traffic. There won't be any yards or large trees. Most or all of those units will be renters. The neighborhood was built on a small pre-WW2 scale that already has cars have to pull over to pass each other and people step into the street to let others pass on the sidewalk. It was not sized to accommodate that density. It's not good.

Nearly all of the other neighborhood streets just happen to have houses that were already expanded with additions or are New Builds. But, just by chance, our street has a lot of original homes that will be targeted by builders. It will be a little slum in the middle of a SFH neighborhood.

Larger buildings with several units should on bigger streets with bigger sidewalks and near public transit.

You’re actually very near a metro stop and def near bus stops. Many many streets in that area also have yield streets. Most sidewalks can’t accommodate people in 2 directions without a step to the side. This is pretty normal stuff. I am not sure what you think a slum looks like, but I don’t think that will happen to your street.

I'm a mile+ from a metro stop and with no bus routes that go near a grocery store. Everyone will have a car.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So begins the decline of Arlington. More people will choose McLean or Bethesda once they see how neighborhoods get transformed by this stupidity.

I don’t think this will happen. I think people will continue to want Arlington for their commutes, or being near amenities, etc. Many of us may go private (like our family). But Arlington is still going to be desirable.

For many people, the dream of owning a SFH is about being on a quiet, peaceful street relatively free of density, not one clogged with cars and people. If people want density, they choose a townhouse or condo. Make no mistake, many people's property values will be negatively impacted.

It's like when you're considering buying a house, but the one next door has all the hallmarks of being inhabited by a hoarder (stuff all over the lawn and backyard, poorly cared for) -- you take a pass and wait for something better to come along. No different here.

Yesterday I literally had someone tell me they chose a SFH in Arlington bc it reminded them of a “city.” The home buying demographic is changing. People are valuing different things.

Umm, OK. If someone wants a "city," there are SFHs in the "city" of DC. Arlington is a suburb.

The densest census district in the entire DMV isn’t even in DC. It’s Ballston. Like it or not, Arlington isn’t a suburb anymore.

Just because someone lives in a "city," that doesn't mean that want multiplexes next door to them. Can you imagine if this was proposed for AU Park, for example?

Like it or not, this will not help property values unless you have a teardown. If you have a $1.5 million house in North Arlington, this is bad for you -- your house is too expensive to be a teardown but if a multiplex gets build next door, your property value will decrease. Pretty telling how a PP was in favor of it but admitted to having a teardown -- those are the folks who will benefit.

I definitely hear your concern, but I still think there were decent policy reasons to make the change. And not many people were nuanced in their opposition- they want all-in asking for no change, ever.

I still think SFHs are a scarce resource in Arlington and they will get scarcer if other housing types are allowed. I just don’t see anyone losing money.

There was no good policy reason for 6 and 4-plexes of 1-2 bedroom rentals. Arlington has no shortage of 1-2 bedroom apartments. I'd have been in favor of MM if it had been limited to townhomes with off-street parking, max 3-units per site. That is the "missing" housing type that would actually be a bridge between the abundant 1-2 bedroom apartments and huge new-build SFHs that would otherwise be built on tear-down lots. Also, Arlington has shown little interest in enforcing set back requirements, reasonable heights and tree preservation when new SFHs are built so the assertion that these new units have to conform to the same requirements as a SFH on the same lot is not at all reassuring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So begins the decline of Arlington. More people will choose McLean or Bethesda once they see how neighborhoods get transformed by this stupidity.

I don’t think this will happen. I think people will continue to want Arlington for their commutes, or being near amenities, etc. Many of us may go private (like our family). But Arlington is still going to be desirable.

For many people, the dream of owning a SFH is about being on a quiet, peaceful street relatively free of density, not one clogged with cars and people. If people want density, they choose a townhouse or condo. Make no mistake, many people's property values will be negatively impacted.

It's like when you're considering buying a house, but the one next door has all the hallmarks of being inhabited by a hoarder (stuff all over the lawn and backyard, poorly cared for) -- you take a pass and wait for something better to come along. No different here.

Yesterday I literally had someone tell me they chose a SFH in Arlington bc it reminded them of a “city.” The home buying demographic is changing. People are valuing different things.

Umm, OK. If someone wants a "city," there are SFHs in the "city" of DC. Arlington is a suburb.

The densest census district in the entire DMV isn’t even in DC. It’s Ballston. Like it or not, Arlington isn’t a suburb anymore.

Just because someone lives in a "city," that doesn't mean that want multiplexes next door to them. Can you imagine if this was proposed for AU Park, for example?

Like it or not, this will not help property values unless you have a teardown. If you have a $1.5 million house in North Arlington, this is bad for you -- your house is too expensive to be a teardown but if a multiplex gets build next door, your property value will decrease. Pretty telling how a PP was in favor of it but admitted to having a teardown -- those are the folks who will benefit.

I definitely hear your concern, but I still think there were decent policy reasons to make the change. And not many people were nuanced in their opposition- they want all-in asking for no change, ever.

I still think SFHs are a scarce resource in Arlington and they will get scarcer if other housing types are allowed. I just don’t see anyone losing money.

There was no good policy reason for 6 and 4-plexes of 1-2 bedroom rentals. Arlington has no shortage of 1-2 bedroom apartments. I'd have been in favor of MM if it had been limited to townhomes with off-street parking, max 3-units per site. That is the "missing" housing type that would actually be a bridge between the abundant 1-2 bedroom apartments and huge new-build SFHs that would otherwise be built on tear-down lots. Also, Arlington has shown little interest in enforcing set back requirements, reasonable heights and tree preservation when new SFHs are built so the assertion that these new units have to conform to the same requirements as a SFH on the same lot is not at all reassuring.

I’m kind of agnostic but I don’t think your position is unreasonable. Was anyone arguing for that though? I feel like the organized contingent was against any changes and TBH they came off as kind of crazy. It’s too bad nobody can ever organize around a middle ground.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So begins the decline of Arlington. More people will choose McLean or Bethesda once they see how neighborhoods get transformed by this stupidity.

I don’t think this will happen. I think people will continue to want Arlington for their commutes, or being near amenities, etc. Many of us may go private (like our family). But Arlington is still going to be desirable.

For many people, the dream of owning a SFH is about being on a quiet, peaceful street relatively free of density, not one clogged with cars and people. If people want density, they choose a townhouse or condo. Make no mistake, many people's property values will be negatively impacted.

It's like when you're considering buying a house, but the one next door has all the hallmarks of being inhabited by a hoarder (stuff all over the lawn and backyard, poorly cared for) -- you take a pass and wait for something better to come along. No different here.

Yesterday I literally had someone tell me they chose a SFH in Arlington bc it reminded them of a “city.” The home buying demographic is changing. People are valuing different things.

Umm, OK. If someone wants a "city," there are SFHs in the "city" of DC. Arlington is a suburb.

The densest census district in the entire DMV isn’t even in DC. It’s Ballston. Like it or not, Arlington isn’t a suburb anymore.

Just because someone lives in a "city," that doesn't mean that want multiplexes next door to them. Can you imagine if this was proposed for AU Park, for example?

Like it or not, this will not help property values unless you have a teardown. If you have a $1.5 million house in North Arlington, this is bad for you -- your house is too expensive to be a teardown but if a multiplex gets build next door, your property value will decrease. Pretty telling how a PP was in favor of it but admitted to having a teardown -- those are the folks who will benefit.

I definitely hear your concern, but I still think there were decent policy reasons to make the change. And not many people were nuanced in their opposition- they want all-in asking for no change, ever.

I still think SFHs are a scarce resource in Arlington and they will get scarcer if other housing types are allowed. I just don’t see anyone losing money.

There was no good policy reason for 6 and 4-plexes of 1-2 bedroom rentals. Arlington has no shortage of 1-2 bedroom apartments. I'd have been in favor of MM if it had been limited to townhomes with off-street parking, max 3-units per site. That is the "missing" housing type that would actually be a bridge between the abundant 1-2 bedroom apartments and huge new-build SFHs that would otherwise be built on tear-down lots. Also, Arlington has shown little interest in enforcing set back requirements, reasonable heights and tree preservation when new SFHs are built so the assertion that these new units have to conform to the same requirements as a SFH on the same lot is not at all reassuring.

I’m kind of agnostic but I don’t think your position is unreasonable. Was anyone arguing for that though? I feel like the organized contingent was against any changes and TBH they came off as kind of crazy. It’s too bad nobody can ever organize around a middle ground.

Yeah, basic problem with all politics these days. I heard plenty of discussion among my circle of friends that 2-3 units per site + parking would be reasonable but that wasn't what people were yelling about. I think both sides sounded crazy (nothing but huge SFHs forever) or dishonest/idiotic as the pro-MM side spun it dishonestly as providing housing for the middle class (but not the 2-bedroom rentals they can already buy) when it was clear it would be either more small apartments or $1m+ townhomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So begins the decline of Arlington. More people will choose McLean or Bethesda once they see how neighborhoods get transformed by this stupidity.

I don’t think this will happen. I think people will continue to want Arlington for their commutes, or being near amenities, etc. Many of us may go private (like our family). But Arlington is still going to be desirable.

For many people, the dream of owning a SFH is about being on a quiet, peaceful street relatively free of density, not one clogged with cars and people. If people want density, they choose a townhouse or condo. Make no mistake, many people's property values will be negatively impacted.

It's like when you're considering buying a house, but the one next door has all the hallmarks of being inhabited by a hoarder (stuff all over the lawn and backyard, poorly cared for) -- you take a pass and wait for something better to come along. No different here.

Yesterday I literally had someone tell me they chose a SFH in Arlington bc it reminded them of a “city.” The home buying demographic is changing. People are valuing different things.

Umm, OK. If someone wants a "city," there are SFHs in the "city" of DC. Arlington is a suburb.

The densest census district in the entire DMV isn’t even in DC. It’s Ballston. Like it or not, Arlington isn’t a suburb anymore.

Just because someone lives in a "city," that doesn't mean that want multiplexes next door to them. Can you imagine if this was proposed for AU Park, for example?

Like it or not, this will not help property values unless you have a teardown. If you have a $1.5 million house in North Arlington, this is bad for you -- your house is too expensive to be a teardown but if a multiplex gets build next door, your property value will decrease. Pretty telling how a PP was in favor of it but admitted to having a teardown -- those are the folks who will benefit.

I definitely hear your concern, but I still think there were decent policy reasons to make the change. And not many people were nuanced in their opposition- they want all-in asking for no change, ever.

I still think SFHs are a scarce resource in Arlington and they will get scarcer if other housing types are allowed. I just don’t see anyone losing money.

There was no good policy reason for 6 and 4-plexes of 1-2 bedroom rentals. Arlington has no shortage of 1-2 bedroom apartments. I'd have been in favor of MM if it had been limited to townhomes with off-street parking, max 3-units per site. That is the "missing" housing type that would actually be a bridge between the abundant 1-2 bedroom apartments and huge new-build SFHs that would otherwise be built on tear-down lots. Also, Arlington has shown little interest in enforcing set back requirements, reasonable heights and tree preservation when new SFHs are built so the assertion that these new units have to conform to the same requirements as a SFH on the same lot is not at all reassuring.

I’m kind of agnostic but I don’t think your position is unreasonable. Was anyone arguing for that though? I feel like the organized contingent was against any changes and TBH they came off as kind of crazy. It’s too bad nobody can ever organize around a middle ground.

Yeah, basic problem with all politics these days. I heard plenty of discussion among my circle of friends that 2-3 units per site + parking would be reasonable but that wasn't what people were yelling about. I think both sides sounded crazy (nothing but huge SFHs forever) or dishonest/idiotic as the pro-MM side spun it dishonestly as providing housing for the middle class (but not the 2-bedroom rentals they can already buy) when it was clear it would be either more small apartments or $1m+ townhomes.

I don’t disagree with your analysis.

[Anonymous]

People and neighborhood groups did propose options--not just objections--but the board didn't listen, minds made up.

I too thought MM's intent and purpose was to build lower cost affordable town houses and condos in residential neighborhoods for families to PURCHASE not a bunch of rentals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People and neighborhood groups did propose options--not just objections--but the board didn't listen, minds made up.

I too thought MM's intent and purpose was to build lower cost affordable town houses and condos in residential neighborhoods for families to PURCHASE not a bunch of rentals.

Wishful thinking and was never going to happen. I was sorry Roy didn't win the primary. I know her socially and she'd been talking about this fallacy for a long time and that, as a realtor, she knows a lot of developers who have told her MM is good for them but bad for neighborhoods. I think she'd have brought a good dose of reality to the board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People and neighborhood groups did propose options--not just objections--but the board didn't listen, minds made up.

I too thought MM's intent and purpose was to build lower cost affordable town houses and condos in residential neighborhoods for families to PURCHASE not a bunch of rentals.

Wishful thinking and was never going to happen. I was sorry Roy didn't win the primary. I know her socially and she'd been talking about this fallacy for a long time and that, as a realtor, she knows a lot of developers who have told her MM is good for them but bad for neighborhoods. I think she'd have brought a good dose of reality to the board.

I think the boards suspects this. I also assume that’s why they are capping the annual number of building permits for EHOs. I don’t think anyone really knows what’s going to happen for sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People and neighborhood groups did propose options--not just objections--but the board didn't listen, minds made up.

I too thought MM's intent and purpose was to build lower cost affordable town houses and condos in residential neighborhoods for families to PURCHASE not a bunch of rentals.

Wishful thinking and was never going to happen. I was sorry Roy didn't win the primary. I know her socially and she'd been talking about this fallacy for a long time and that, as a realtor, she knows a lot of developers who have told her MM is good for them but bad for neighborhoods. I think she'd have brought a good dose of reality to the board.

I think the boards suspects this. I also assume that’s why they are capping the annual number of building permits for EHOs. I don’t think anyone really knows what’s going to happen for sure.

The Board isn’t capping the annual number of permits because they suspect this will be bad for neighborhoods! They don’t care what happens with this housing or neighborhoods (there can never be too much density for them). The Board just wanted to be one of the first counties in the country to have MMH. They only put a cap to make it look like they were compromising with all the residents who were opposed to MMH. They also changed the name because everyone knows that this housing isn’t for middle class folks that can’t afford Arlington. They made very few concessions and are not worried in the least about parking, sewers, over crowded schools or tree canopy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People and neighborhood groups did propose options--not just objections--but the board didn't listen, minds made up.

I too thought MM's intent and purpose was to build lower cost affordable town houses and condos in residential neighborhoods for families to PURCHASE not a bunch of rentals.

Wishful thinking and was never going to happen. I was sorry Roy didn't win the primary. I know her socially and she'd been talking about this fallacy for a long time and that, as a realtor, she knows a lot of developers who have told her MM is good for them but bad for neighborhoods. I think she'd have brought a good dose of reality to the board.

I think the boards suspects this. I also assume that’s why they are capping the annual number of building permits for EHOs. I don’t think anyone really knows what’s going to happen for sure.

The Board isn’t capping the annual number of permits because they suspect this will be bad for neighborhoods! They don’t care what happens with this housing or neighborhoods (there can never be too much density for them). The Board just wanted to be one of the first counties in the country to have MMH. They only put a cap to make it look like they were compromising with all the residents who were opposed to MMH. They also changed the name because everyone knows that this housing isn’t for middle class folks that can’t afford Arlington. They made very few concessions and are not worried in the least about parking, sewers, over crowded schools or tree canopy.

I don’t think it was a concession. Even if it was, I doubt the people opposing this change would even see the cap as a compromise. I think the Board literally has no idea what will happen and if ArlCo can support a huge rush to build in the short-term. I’m not a huge fan of the board but I actually believed them on this one. It’s a huge unknown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So begins the decline of Arlington. More people will choose McLean or Bethesda once they see how neighborhoods get transformed by this stupidity.

I don’t think this will happen. I think people will continue to want Arlington for their commutes, or being near amenities, etc. Many of us may go private (like our family). But Arlington is still going to be desirable.

For many people, the dream of owning a SFH is about being on a quiet, peaceful street relatively free of density, not one clogged with cars and people. If people want density, they choose a townhouse or condo. Make no mistake, many people's property values will be negatively impacted.

It's like when you're considering buying a house, but the one next door has all the hallmarks of being inhabited by a hoarder (stuff all over the lawn and backyard, poorly cared for) -- you take a pass and wait for something better to come along. No different here.

Yesterday I literally had someone tell me they chose a SFH in Arlington bc it reminded them of a “city.” The home buying demographic is changing. People are valuing different things.

Umm, OK. If someone wants a "city," there are SFHs in the "city" of DC. Arlington is a suburb.

The densest census district in the entire DMV isn’t even in DC. It’s Ballston. Like it or not, Arlington isn’t a suburb anymore.

Just because someone lives in a "city," that doesn't mean that want multiplexes next door to them. Can you imagine if this was proposed for AU Park, for example?

Like it or not, this will not help property values unless you have a teardown. If you have a $1.5 million house in North Arlington, this is bad for you -- your house is too expensive to be a teardown but if a multiplex gets build next door, your property value will decrease. Pretty telling how a PP was in favor of it but admitted to having a teardown -- those are the folks who will benefit.

I definitely hear your concern, but I still think there were decent policy reasons to make the change. And not many people were nuanced in their opposition- they want all-in asking for no change, ever.

I still think SFHs are a scarce resource in Arlington and they will get scarcer if other housing types are allowed. I just don’t see anyone losing money.

There was no good policy reason for 6 and 4-plexes of 1-2 bedroom rentals. Arlington has no shortage of 1-2 bedroom apartments. I'd have been in favor of MM if it had been limited to townhomes with off-street parking, max 3-units per site. That is the "missing" housing type that would actually be a bridge between the abundant 1-2 bedroom apartments and huge new-build SFHs that would otherwise be built on tear-down lots. Also, Arlington has shown little interest in enforcing set back requirements, reasonable heights and tree preservation when new SFHs are built so the assertion that these new units have to conform to the same requirements as a SFH on the same lot is not at all reassuring.

I’m kind of agnostic but I don’t think your position is unreasonable. Was anyone arguing for that though? I feel like the organized contingent was against any changes and TBH they came off as kind of crazy. It’s too bad nobody can ever organize around a middle ground.

Yeah, basic problem with all politics these days. I heard plenty of discussion among my circle of friends that 2-3 units per site + parking would be reasonable but that wasn't what people were yelling about. I think both sides sounded crazy (nothing but huge SFHs forever) or dishonest/idiotic as the pro-MM side spun it dishonestly as providing housing for the middle class (but not the 2-bedroom rentals they can already buy) when it was clear it would be either more small apartments or $1m+ townhomes.

I was in favor of fee simple duplexes with parking, like the ones around the county already. They would have served a real purpose in bringing more affordable housing types to almost every neighborhood. Instead we got a developer boondoggle.