We need to build more: gentrification caused by blocking housing construction (not the opposite!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are we looking for more apartments in DC? There is a glut of available apartments. Walk to ANY complex and you will see units available. Why are we building more and more, when you can get insane deals on the ones that are here? Has anybody seen a sign on a building saying "sorry, no units available"?

Define "insane deals" please?

Months of free rent.

It used to be that sometimes you would see that your move in month was free. Now there are signs all over that say no rent in 2020 (Those signs were up in September). First and last month free. Three months no rent once on one year anniversary...

How many months, and what's the rent when it isn't free?

group homes, basement apartments, room-mates, living with parents or a longer commute. that's what we did when we were "millenials"

Millennials are now pushing 40, is that what you think grown adults with families should do? Is that what you did when you were 40?

NP. Yeah, move to where it's more affordable like Fairfax, or further out near Haymarket. I would live to live on the beach in San Diego but that's life. I don't know anyone waiting around for the govt to rescue them from income inequality.

When i was pushing 40 I lived in DC in a tiny apartment with my family because I liked the location. Now I live in a house (pushing 50) and still like the location. So yeah. that's what I did when I was 40. Grow up!

Do you not read newspapers? People like you keep insisting against all evidence that millennials just have to suck it up. Increasing housing prices and stagnating wages are a macroeconomic problem and millennials are objectively worse off compared to you. See the link.

https://wolfstreet.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/US-income-v-housing-1-nationwide-.png

Can you give an example of govt intervention reducing housing prices so that it is affordable for all residents?

[Anonymous]

There isn’t a great gov’t example of completely fixing the problem.

But HUD and subsidized affordable housing DOES improve the situation.

But our housing shortage is so severe we need to try everything: build, rollback zoning, Section 8 subsidized housing, affordable rules, LIHTC subsidized housing.

We need to do everything. DC should be trying it all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[

Can you give an example of govt intervention reducing housing prices so that it is affordable for all residents?

Huh? It's common in many other countries to have a social-housing program. In fact, even the US used to have a social-housing program for white people, but that came to an end with the prospect of having to extend it to black people, which apparently was an insupportable idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There isn’t a great gov’t example of completely fixing the problem.

But HUD and subsidized affordable housing DOES improve the situation.

But our housing shortage is so severe we need to try everything: build, rollback zoning, Section 8 subsidized housing, affordable rules, LIHTC subsidized housing.

We need to do everything. DC should be trying it all.

Do we have a housing shortage in America, or a shortage of very cheap housing in expensive neighborhoods? Just want to be clear

[Anonymous]

It is not a housing shortage that worries GGW. It is the inability to Kickstart new projects in desirable locations. Why don't they build a mixed use development in Anacostia. Because their developer cronies want the big money instantly from other wards. They have no long term vision or even desire to right the injustices they speak of. Only developing green space and trying to sell more homes in desirable areas.

When was the last time GGW ventured east to actually help anybody and not just use their 'data' as some sort of fear mongering for one of their I'll conceived get rich quick schemes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Architect here. Most of the cost of new housing in dc is dealing with the totally insane bureaucracy. It’s shameful. There should be a lot more public outrage about it.

Hello Ms. or Mr. Architect.
You probably won't get much public outrage on an issue that only applies to real estate developers and architects. The last I checked, architects make up a small percentage of the population, though the work of architects is embedded in our daily lives. I am sure most real estate developers and architects complain about the bureaucracy in all majors cities, from DC to LA to Dallas to Tokyo. It is highly doubtful that Boston, Minneapolis or Providence, RI has a less insane bureaucracy when it comes to constructing new housing. Permits and fees is part of the process. Of course, if permits, fees, and plan reviews weren't, most of the country would be hodge podge of shanty towns. As an architect, you probably learned from your university studies why cities developed building standards. I am positive that in an architectural textbook, there was a chapter about standardizing the building process and the role of city governments. Nevertheless, most cities publish procedures for building housing in their particular locale. Since every city is different, there are probably some variations of the process. Either way, if you're in the business of designing and building new homes, then you should be keenly aware that you will have to complete a set of tasks in order to get your project approved. If not, I'd hazard a guess that the AIA would prove a fruitful resource to navigate the design process and the DC bureaucracy. Evidently, new housing is being constructed in DC, so it must be a somewhat worthwhile. If an architect doesn't want to deal with the DC bureaucracy, they are free to design housing in Waldorf, Alexandria, Upper Marlboro, etc. That is one of the benefits of free enterprise economy-you can take your money and business wherever you want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pop ups are hideous

They don’t have to be. The new zoning laws are actually making pop ups worse. If you want to avoid the BZA and build by right, then you wind up with the ugly boxes on top of a historic house. Let people actually modify mansards and they wouldn’t have to make ugly pop ups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There isn’t a great gov’t example of completely fixing the problem.

But HUD and subsidized affordable housing DOES improve the situation.

But our housing shortage is so severe we need to try everything: build, rollback zoning, Section 8 subsidized housing, affordable rules, LIHTC subsidized housing.

We need to do everything. DC should be trying it all.

Do we have a housing shortage in America, or a shortage of very cheap housing in expensive neighborhoods? Just want to be clear

We have a housing shortage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There isn’t a great gov’t example of completely fixing the problem.

But HUD and subsidized affordable housing DOES improve the situation.

But our housing shortage is so severe we need to try everything: build, rollback zoning, Section 8 subsidized housing, affordable rules, LIHTC subsidized housing.

We need to do everything. DC should be trying it all.

Do we have a housing shortage in America, or a shortage of very cheap housing in expensive neighborhoods? Just want to be clear

We have a housing shortage.

Lots of houses available in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There isn’t a great gov’t example of completely fixing the problem.

But HUD and subsidized affordable housing DOES improve the situation.

But our housing shortage is so severe we need to try everything: build, rollback zoning, Section 8 subsidized housing, affordable rules, LIHTC subsidized housing.

We need to do everything. DC should be trying it all.

Do we have a housing shortage in America, or a shortage of very cheap housing in expensive neighborhoods? Just want to be clear

We have a housing shortage.

Lots of houses available in DC.

Give it a rest, eh? Yes, you don't want anybody to build any new housing because you've got yours. That doesn't mean there's not a housing shortage. It just means that you've got yours. This is not about those darn millennials/zoomers wanting nice stuff you think they don't deserve, it's about housing - a basic need for human beings of all ages and incomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There isn’t a great gov’t example of completely fixing the problem.

But HUD and subsidized affordable housing DOES improve the situation.

But our housing shortage is so severe we need to try everything: build, rollback zoning, Section 8 subsidized housing, affordable rules, LIHTC subsidized housing.

We need to do everything. DC should be trying it all.

Do we have a housing shortage in America, or a shortage of very cheap housing in expensive neighborhoods? Just want to be clear

You need to look at what makes a neighborhood expensive. In the DC area, its: quality public schools, proximity to metro, walkability, quality of housing stock, proximity to amenities (grocery stores and other convenient retail). Interestingly, crime and safety are not as correlative as you might think. Many of the most expensive neighborhoods in DC proper have a lot of crime (Shaw and Navy Yard being the two that come to mind fastest).

So you miss the point if you interpret this as just people wanting cheap housing in expensive neighborhoods. What's actually happening is that people want access to shared amenities, including taxpayer funded ones like schools, public transportation, and walk-friendly streetscaping. And even the ones that aren't public funded (decent houses, nearby grocery stores) are pretty basic needs.

So yes, there should be cheaper housing in our "expensive" neighborhoods, because you shouldn't have to be wealthy to gain access to some of this stuff. That's why people push for greater housing density, so that these amenities are genuinely shared among different socioeconomic classes.

And this applies in the city and in the suburbs. It's just easier to accomplish in the city where people don't fight density quite as much (they still fight it, but it's harder to argue against). But even in suburbs, we should have more socioeconomically diverse neighborhoods clustered around public goods and amenities. It would be more efficient AND more just.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There isn’t a great gov’t example of completely fixing the problem.

But HUD and subsidized affordable housing DOES improve the situation.

But our housing shortage is so severe we need to try everything: build, rollback zoning, Section 8 subsidized housing, affordable rules, LIHTC subsidized housing.

We need to do everything. DC should be trying it all.

Do we have a housing shortage in America, or a shortage of very cheap housing in expensive neighborhoods? Just want to be clear

You need to look at what makes a neighborhood expensive. In the DC area, its: quality public schools, proximity to metro, walkability, quality of housing stock, proximity to amenities (grocery stores and other convenient retail). Interestingly, crime and safety are not as correlative as you might think. Many of the most expensive neighborhoods in DC proper have a lot of crime (Shaw and Navy Yard being the two that come to mind fastest).

So you miss the point if you interpret this as just people wanting cheap housing in expensive neighborhoods. What's actually happening is that people want access to shared amenities, including taxpayer funded ones like schools, public transportation, and walk-friendly streetscaping. And even the ones that aren't public funded (decent houses, nearby grocery stores) are pretty basic needs.

So yes, there should be cheaper housing in our "expensive" neighborhoods, because you shouldn't have to be wealthy to gain access to some of this stuff. That's why people push for greater housing density, so that these amenities are genuinely shared among different socioeconomic classes.

And this applies in the city and in the suburbs. It's just easier to accomplish in the city where people don't fight density quite as much (they still fight it, but it's harder to argue against). But even in suburbs, we should have more socioeconomically diverse neighborhoods clustered around public goods and amenities. It would be more efficient AND more just.

Is it impossible to build this stuff in the communities that deserve it and want it?

Why can't Anacostia have these things? Seems easier than building a lot of "cheap" housing in other areas and then asking those people to move from their homes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There isn’t a great gov’t example of completely fixing the problem.

But HUD and subsidized affordable housing DOES improve the situation.

But our housing shortage is so severe we need to try everything: build, rollback zoning, Section 8 subsidized housing, affordable rules, LIHTC subsidized housing.

We need to do everything. DC should be trying it all.

Do we have a housing shortage in America, or a shortage of very cheap housing in expensive neighborhoods? Just want to be clear

We have a housing shortage.

Lots of houses available in DC.

Give it a rest, eh? Yes, you don't want anybody to build any new housing because you've got yours. That doesn't mean there's not a housing shortage. It just means that you've got yours. This is not about those darn millennials/zoomers wanting nice stuff you think they don't deserve, it's about housing - a basic need for human beings of all ages and incomes.

DC is a tiny city. Not everyone who works here HAS to live here. We are a tri-state, intertwined system. We also have people living in DC who work in MD and VA. We don't demand they provide more housing. With that being said, there are ample areas that could use a little development (looking over the Anacostia here). It could be done in a thoughtful mixed income way. There are also programs to help teachers etc. buy homes and keep long time homeowners in place (homestead act). I'm not sure why the hard-on for Ward 3. Seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There isn’t a great gov’t example of completely fixing the problem.

But HUD and subsidized affordable housing DOES improve the situation.

But our housing shortage is so severe we need to try everything: build, rollback zoning, Section 8 subsidized housing, affordable rules, LIHTC subsidized housing.

We need to do everything. DC should be trying it all.

Do we have a housing shortage in America, or a shortage of very cheap housing in expensive neighborhoods? Just want to be clear

You need to look at what makes a neighborhood expensive. In the DC area, its: quality public schools, proximity to metro, walkability, quality of housing stock, proximity to amenities (grocery stores and other convenient retail). Interestingly, crime and safety are not as correlative as you might think. Many of the most expensive neighborhoods in DC proper have a lot of crime (Shaw and Navy Yard being the two that come to mind fastest).

So you miss the point if you interpret this as just people wanting cheap housing in expensive neighborhoods. What's actually happening is that people want access to shared amenities, including taxpayer funded ones like schools, public transportation, and walk-friendly streetscaping. And even the ones that aren't public funded (decent houses, nearby grocery stores) are pretty basic needs.

So yes, there should be cheaper housing in our "expensive" neighborhoods, because you shouldn't have to be wealthy to gain access to some of this stuff. That's why people push for greater housing density, so that these amenities are genuinely shared among different socioeconomic classes.

And this applies in the city and in the suburbs. It's just easier to accomplish in the city where people don't fight density quite as much (they still fight it, but it's harder to argue against). But even in suburbs, we should have more socioeconomically diverse neighborhoods clustered around public goods and amenities. It would be more efficient AND more just.

There are half empty schools across the city. There are neighborhoods that desperately need supermarkets. Move there and the schools will fill up and the supermarkets will come. You know this, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There isn’t a great gov’t example of completely fixing the problem.

But HUD and subsidized affordable housing DOES improve the situation.

But our housing shortage is so severe we need to try everything: build, rollback zoning, Section 8 subsidized housing, affordable rules, LIHTC subsidized housing.

We need to do everything. DC should be trying it all.

Do we have a housing shortage in America, or a shortage of very cheap housing in expensive neighborhoods? Just want to be clear

You need to look at what makes a neighborhood expensive. In the DC area, its: quality public schools, proximity to metro, walkability, quality of housing stock, proximity to amenities (grocery stores and other convenient retail). Interestingly, crime and safety are not as correlative as you might think. Many of the most expensive neighborhoods in DC proper have a lot of crime (Shaw and Navy Yard being the two that come to mind fastest).

So you miss the point if you interpret this as just people wanting cheap housing in expensive neighborhoods. What's actually happening is that people want access to shared amenities, including taxpayer funded ones like schools, public transportation, and walk-friendly streetscaping. And even the ones that aren't public funded (decent houses, nearby grocery stores) are pretty basic needs.

So yes, there should be cheaper housing in our "expensive" neighborhoods, because you shouldn't have to be wealthy to gain access to some of this stuff. That's why people push for greater housing density, so that these amenities are genuinely shared among different socioeconomic classes.

And this applies in the city and in the suburbs. It's just easier to accomplish in the city where people don't fight density quite as much (they still fight it, but it's harder to argue against). But even in suburbs, we should have more socioeconomically diverse neighborhoods clustered around public goods and amenities. It would be more efficient AND more just.

Is it impossible to build this stuff in the communities that deserve it and want it?

Why can't Anacostia have these things? Seems easier than building a lot of "cheap" housing in other areas and then asking those people to move from their homes.

You have to do both, actually. Otherwise, what happens is that the capital investment in neighborhoods like Anacostia leads to an influx of, first, young professionals, and then wealthier people. The people who currently live there start getting priced out, the nature of the neighborhood changes, and then the COL goes way up. And while, yes, you now have another nice neighborhood for wealthy people to live in, you still have nowhere for middle and working class families to live.

So you have to intentionally build and invest in affordable housing. You need somewhere for people who make under 100k a year to live, and you need this places to not be segregated because that leads to slumlords and concentrations of crime.

Sorry, but you can't get around it. If you sort people by socioeconomic status, you will inevitably wind up with resource hoarding among the wealthiest residents. You can't go build some working class utopia in a segregated part of town, because the minute it looks appealing at all, the wealthy will come in and take it.