Interesting twist on DC "density argument" - Metro ridership continues to plummet

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea that increasing density will reduce housing costs is such a weird lie.

Housing in cities has been getting more dense since forever -- no one has ever torn down a condo building in order to make way for a single-family home. It only goes in the other direction.

And yet the most densely populated places in America -- like DC -- are, as always, the most expensive places in America.

What's weird about it? Increasing density increases the supply of housing. Increasing the supply of housing reduces the price of housing. That's basic economics.

The most densely-populated places in America, which are not very densely-populated, are expensive because lots of people want to live there. That's also basic economics. Housing costs are low in Louisa County, Iowa (population density 28 people per square mile) because few people want to live there.

"Increasing density" is really just gentrification, and gentrification ("increasing density") drives housing prices up.

Because the more people you pack into an area, the more attractive you make it to businesses. Bars, restaurants, boutiques want to be where lots of people are. Once bars, restaurants, boutiques move in, then the area seems more attractive to many people, which increases demand for housing, which drives prices up. That creates more demand for even more housing, which spurs more condo buildings, which attracts more businesses, which makes the area seem more attractive to more people, which increases demand for housing in that area-- and so on and so on.

It's been happening over and over and over across DC.

Gentrification used to be a huge issue in DC. People worried a lot about black people being pushed out of DC to make way for condos for young white lawyers. Then they stopped calling it gentrification and started calling it "increasing density," and suddenly no one cared anymore, even though DC has the worst gentrification problem in the country. Now people act like it's a good thing, all because they renamed it "increasing density."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea that increasing density will reduce housing costs is such a weird lie.

Housing in cities has been getting more dense since forever -- no one has ever torn down a condo building in order to make way for a single-family home. It only goes in the other direction.

And yet the most densely populated places in America -- like DC -- are, as always, the most expensive places in America.

What's weird about it? Increasing density increases the supply of housing. Increasing the supply of housing reduces the price of housing. That's basic economics.

The most densely-populated places in America, which are not very densely-populated, are expensive because lots of people want to live there. That's also basic economics. Housing costs are low in Louisa County, Iowa (population density 28 people per square mile) because few people want to live there.

"Increasing density" is really just gentrification, and gentrification ("increasing density") drives housing prices up.

Because the more people you pack into an area, the more attractive you make it to businesses. Bars, restaurants, boutiques want to be where lots of people are. Once bars, restaurants, boutiques move in, then the area seems more attractive to many people, which increases demand for housing, which drives prices up. That creates more demand for even more housing, which spurs more condo buildings, which attracts more businesses, which makes the area seem more attractive to more people, which increases demand for housing in that area-- and so on and so on.

It's been happening over and over and over across DC.

Gentrification used to be a huge issue in DC. People worried a lot about black people being pushed out of DC to make way for condos for young white lawyers. Then they stopped calling it gentrification and started calling it "increasing density," and suddenly no one cared anymore, even though DC has the worst gentrification problem in the country. Now people act like it's a good thing, all because they renamed it "increasing density."

Why don't we call it developer, but not community, enrichment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s a pandemic.
If you haven’t noticed, car traffic is way way down too.
Should we tear up all the roads too?

No, but we should be assessing how commuting patterns will change before we commit to new road projects. We'd be silly not to be doing similar assessments regarding the long term impact on metro riding.

We don't know that. Indeed, we can't *possibly* know the long-term impact on metro ridership right now. We'd be idiots to make any plans or assessments before the pandemic is over and we see what *actually* happens. You can't "assess" something that hasn't happened yet.

So you think planning is purely reactive and no effort should be made to forecast? That's not how government or business works.

Of course we don't know exactly how things will shake out long-term. And, yes, to the degree possible we should avoid making large, expensive, irreversible decisions before we have a better sense of how things will look post-pandemic. But you can't put everything on hold for years, and it could easily take years for people to have a sense of how many/which changes will be permanent. Also, nothing is ever "permanent," things constantly change and policy makers can't simply wait and wait because they don't know how things will change going forward.

In a related context, policy makers are already assessing what jobs will not come back (which itself will impact commuting, among other things) and trying to plan accordingly. Do you think we should wait until we see permanent job loss (and for long would be enough for you?) before we start to try to take measures to help counteract these job losses?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/road-to-recovery/2021/02/17/unemployed-workers-retraining/

No. I think we're in the middle of an unprecedented situation and we can't really forecast the effects right now. Maybe lots of jobs will end up being remote, but I'd be shocked if most of the federal government goes full-time WFH. Maybe people will move out to the suburbs for more space, and will rely on Metro even more to get to their jobs.

Frankly, I think Metro should be using this time to make necessary repairs and improvements so that when ridership begins to climb again, it will be in a position to offer good service. Cutting Metro is a self-fulfilling prophecy: they lack money, so they have to cut service, so fewer people ride, so they lose money, so they have to cut service, etc. We should be putting money into critical infrastructure in general right now -- Metro, roads, power grid, etc. -- when unemployment is high and interest rates are low.

So true. If all those apartment dwellers suddenly move to Loudoun and now drive to park and ride 2 times a week to take metro, rather than walking to work, you could see a big boost to metro, maybe even more revenue since they are going on long rides.

But honestly we just don’t know what the after times will be like at all, so we have to adjust as best we can go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is talk of converting hotels and empty office buildings in DC to residences. These would be even closer to downtown "vibrancy". There is zero reason to compete with this in our Covid shattered real estate landscape by building MORE density when we clearly have potential stock in place.

Our what landscape?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s a pandemic.
If you haven’t noticed, car traffic is way way down too.
Should we tear up all the roads too?

No, but we should be assessing how commuting patterns will change before we commit to new road projects. We'd be silly not to be doing similar assessments regarding the long term impact on metro riding.

We don't know that. Indeed, we can't *possibly* know the long-term impact on metro ridership right now. We'd be idiots to make any plans or assessments before the pandemic is over and we see what *actually* happens. You can't "assess" something that hasn't happened yet.

So you think planning is purely reactive and no effort should be made to forecast? That's not how government or business works.

Of course we don't know exactly how things will shake out long-term. And, yes, to the degree possible we should avoid making large, expensive, irreversible decisions before we have a better sense of how things will look post-pandemic. But you can't put everything on hold for years, and it could easily take years for people to have a sense of how many/which changes will be permanent. Also, nothing is ever "permanent," things constantly change and policy makers can't simply wait and wait because they don't know how things will change going forward.

In a related context, policy makers are already assessing what jobs will not come back (which itself will impact commuting, among other things) and trying to plan accordingly. Do you think we should wait until we see permanent job loss (and for long would be enough for you?) before we start to try to take measures to help counteract these job losses?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/road-to-recovery/2021/02/17/unemployed-workers-retraining/

No. I think we're in the middle of an unprecedented situation and we can't really forecast the effects right now. Maybe lots of jobs will end up being remote, but I'd be shocked if most of the federal government goes full-time WFH. Maybe people will move out to the suburbs for more space, and will rely on Metro even more to get to their jobs.

Frankly, I think Metro should be using this time to make necessary repairs and improvements so that when ridership begins to climb again, it will be in a position to offer good service. Cutting Metro is a self-fulfilling prophecy: they lack money, so they have to cut service, so fewer people ride, so they lose money, so they have to cut service, etc. We should be putting money into critical infrastructure in general right now -- Metro, roads, power grid, etc. -- when unemployment is high and interest rates are low.

So true. If all those apartment dwellers suddenly move to Loudoun and now drive to park and ride 2 times a week to take metro, rather than walking to work, you could see a big boost to metro, maybe even more revenue since they are going on long rides.

But honestly we just don’t know what the after times will be like at all, so we have to adjust as best we can go.

But there just aren't that many people who currently walk to work. Even most "apartment dwellers" in the city take metro or the bus to work. A trip from Loudon would obviously cost more than the trip from Cleveland Park to Metro Center, but I don't think that would do much to offset people coming into the office much less frequently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea that increasing density will reduce housing costs is such a weird lie.

Housing in cities has been getting more dense since forever -- no one has ever torn down a condo building in order to make way for a single-family home. It only goes in the other direction.

And yet the most densely populated places in America -- like DC -- are, as always, the most expensive places in America.

What's weird about it? Increasing density increases the supply of housing. Increasing the supply of housing reduces the price of housing. That's basic economics.

The most densely-populated places in America, which are not very densely-populated, are expensive because lots of people want to live there. That's also basic economics. Housing costs are low in Louisa County, Iowa (population density 28 people per square mile) because few people want to live there.

"Increasing density" is really just gentrification, and gentrification ("increasing density") drives housing prices up.

Because the more people you pack into an area, the more attractive you make it to businesses. Bars, restaurants, boutiques want to be where lots of people are. Once bars, restaurants, boutiques move in, then the area seems more attractive to many people, which increases demand for housing, which drives prices up. That creates more demand for even more housing, which spurs more condo buildings, which attracts more businesses, which makes the area seem more attractive to more people, which increases demand for housing in that area-- and so on and so on.

It's been happening over and over and over across DC.

Gentrification used to be a huge issue in DC. People worried a lot about black people being pushed out of DC to make way for condos for young white lawyers. Then they stopped calling it gentrification and started calling it "increasing density," and suddenly no one cared anymore, even though DC has the worst gentrification problem in the country. Now people act like it's a good thing, all because they renamed it "increasing density."

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let the market decide. Just because DC allows for denser population near metro does not mean they will be built.

I trust a developer of multifamily buildings to have a better sense of what the market wants that me.

That’s a joke. Of course they’ll be built if left to the developer’s discretion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea that increasing density will reduce housing costs is such a weird lie.

Housing in cities has been getting more dense since forever -- no one has ever torn down a condo building in order to make way for a single-family home. It only goes in the other direction.

And yet the most densely populated places in America -- like DC -- are, as always, the most expensive places in America.

What's weird about it? Increasing density increases the supply of housing. Increasing the supply of housing reduces the price of housing. That's basic economics.

The most densely-populated places in America, which are not very densely-populated, are expensive because lots of people want to live there. That's also basic economics. Housing costs are low in Louisa County, Iowa (population density 28 people per square mile) because few people want to live there.

"Increasing density" is really just gentrification, and gentrification ("increasing density") drives housing prices up.

Because the more people you pack into an area, the more attractive you make it to businesses. Bars, restaurants, boutiques want to be where lots of people are. Once bars, restaurants, boutiques move in, then the area seems more attractive to many people, which increases demand for housing, which drives prices up. That creates more demand for even more housing, which spurs more condo buildings, which attracts more businesses, which makes the area seem more attractive to more people, which increases demand for housing in that area-- and so on and so on.

It's been happening over and over and over across DC.

Gentrification used to be a huge issue in DC. People worried a lot about black people being pushed out of DC to make way for condos for young white lawyers. Then they stopped calling it gentrification and started calling it "increasing density," and suddenly no one cared anymore, even though DC has the worst gentrification problem in the country. Now people act like it's a good thing, all because they renamed it "increasing density."

Well put.

[Anonymous]

The former marriott across from the Omni now sitting empty. But lets build!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The former marriott across from the Omni now sitting empty. But lets build!!

who is "us" and what should we build?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The former marriott across from the Omni now sitting empty. But lets build!!

who is "us" and what should we build?

Us is the developers who are going to build high rise tiny condos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The former marriott across from the Omni now sitting empty. But lets build!!

who is "us" and what should we build?

Us is the developers who are going to build high rise tiny condos.

Evidently people want to buy high-rise tiny condos, otherwise We-the-Developers wouldn't build them. Everyone knows that. So, what's the issue? Also, how does this relate to the Marriott Wardman Park closing due to bankruptcy?

https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2021/01/12/pacific-life-insurance-wardman-park-bankruptcy.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The former marriott across from the Omni now sitting empty. But lets build!!

who is "us" and what should we build?

Us is the developers who are going to build high rise tiny condos.

Evidently people want to buy high-rise tiny condos, otherwise We-the-Developers wouldn't build them. Everyone knows that. So, what's the issue? Also, how does this relate to the Marriott Wardman Park closing due to bankruptcy?

https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2021/01/12/pacific-life-insurance-wardman-park-bankruptcy.html

I would hope a little more goes into urban planning than what people want to buy and what developers will build

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The former marriott across from the Omni now sitting empty. But lets build!!

who is "us" and what should we build?

Us is the developers who are going to build high rise tiny condos.

Evidently people want to buy high-rise tiny condos, otherwise We-the-Developers wouldn't build them. Everyone knows that. So, what's the issue? Also, how does this relate to the Marriott Wardman Park closing due to bankruptcy?

https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2021/01/12/pacific-life-insurance-wardman-park-bankruptcy.html

I would hope a little more goes into urban planning than what people want to buy and what developers will build

Such as? Here's a clear signal from the market, but the city planners should ignore it, because...?