maybe housing in dc isn't as expensive as everyone thinks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And no one seriously wants to ban SFHs. They want to end SFH only zoning. To allow people more options on what to do with their property.

The vast majority of the "end SFH zoning" that I have encountered don't really care about "options" or even "affordability," it's all about punishing people richer than them for daring to be able to afford a SFH in DC. I've yet to meet one that specifically advocates for upzoning the entire city, it's always all about Ward 3 and WOTP. If you point out that there are just as many single family homes in NE and SE which could provide even more affordable housing than building on $800,000 lots in NW you get no response.

For the record, I'm 100% for eliminating single family zoning citywide. I just don't see any rational reason for limiting it to one specific area.

I cannot speak about people you personally know. Most advocates for upzoning I know want broader change. But there is a rational reason to focus upzoning on high income areas - those are areas most in demand (econ 101 suggests that is where the greatest added utility is), those are areas where added density means most tax dollars - that is where the most opportunity hoarding has occurred - its where even ordinary middle class people have been kept out and its generally where the least existing committed AH is. And if you buy the argument that "high rises lead to amenities leads to gentrification" its the area where that is least likely to be a problem, because its already gentry.


Also I don't see how its punishing anyone. If anything, its allowing you to build something else if YOU want to.

Unless you are someone looking to buy a SFH in W3, and don't want to have to compete with a developer who might build condos for someone less rich than you. And you want the police powers of the state to make your purchase of a SFH easier, by banning other forms of development.

In which case I think the anger at folks like you is pretty understandable

Why would high income areas be most 'in demand'? I would assume that the housing is $ because the houses are big etc. I would think mixed income with deals are most in demand, and also a place to focus on--especially with an eye to bringing in residents and improving schools. What about the area around Catholic U, or Ward 8. So much opportunity there!

I am pretty sure housing in Ward 3 is more expensive per square foot than in the other lower density wards (IE not Ward 2)

There is plenty of development happening near CU, and some even in Ward 8. Not sure what you mean by new development improving schools. If its about more $ for schools, surely new development in W3 will do that. Do you mean changing "the mix of students"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:prices are high but so are incomes. practically everyone here makes a lot more money than they would doing the same job in most other places in this country. the only way to tell whether housing is expensive is to compare the cost of housing to how much people earn.

harvard has done that, and it suggests that while housing prices here are high, they're not as high as they are in denver or arizona or oregon (let alone places like new york city and san francisco and boston)

https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/home-price-income-ratios

Housing is cheaper here than it looks.

Not just because incomes for pretty much everyone are so high, but also because the public transportation system is so well developed -- people here don't need to spend nearly so much on cars.

The vast majority of the metro area (and even some parts of DC) its hard to get along without a car. The places where it is easiest to do so, sell/rent at even more of a premium.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:prices are high but so are incomes. practically everyone here makes a lot more money than they would doing the same job in most other places in this country. the only way to tell whether housing is expensive is to compare the cost of housing to how much people earn.

harvard has done that, and it suggests that while housing prices here are high, they're not as high as they are in denver or arizona or oregon (let alone places like new york city and san francisco and boston)

https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/home-price-income-ratios

Housing is cheaper here than it looks.

Not just because incomes for pretty much everyone are so high, but also because the public transportation system is so well developed -- people here don't need to spend nearly so much on cars.

The vast majority of the metro area (and even some parts of DC) its hard to get along without a car. The places where it is easiest to do so, sell/rent at even more of a premium.

Fort Totten is a metro station. Lots of bus too. great bus lines on 16th street. Why are these areas not being folded into this density drive?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And no one seriously wants to ban SFHs. They want to end SFH only zoning. To allow people more options on what to do with their property.

The vast majority of the "end SFH zoning" that I have encountered don't really care about "options" or even "affordability," it's all about punishing people richer than them for daring to be able to afford a SFH in DC. I've yet to meet one that specifically advocates for upzoning the entire city, it's always all about Ward 3 and WOTP. If you point out that there are just as many single family homes in NE and SE which could provide even more affordable housing than building on $800,000 lots in NW you get no response.

For the record, I'm 100% for eliminating single family zoning citywide. I just don't see any rational reason for limiting it to one specific area.

I cannot speak about people you personally know. Most advocates for upzoning I know want broader change. But there is a rational reason to focus upzoning on high income areas - those are areas most in demand (econ 101 suggests that is where the greatest added utility is), those are areas where added density means most tax dollars - that is where the most opportunity hoarding has occurred - its where even ordinary middle class people have been kept out and its generally where the least existing committed AH is. And if you buy the argument that "high rises lead to amenities leads to gentrification" its the area where that is least likely to be a problem, because its already gentry.


Also I don't see how its punishing anyone. If anything, its allowing you to build something else if YOU want to.

Unless you are someone looking to buy a SFH in W3, and don't want to have to compete with a developer who might build condos for someone less rich than you. And you want the police powers of the state to make your purchase of a SFH easier, by banning other forms of development.

In which case I think the anger at folks like you is pretty understandable

Why would high income areas be most 'in demand'? I would assume that the housing is $ because the houses are big etc. I would think mixed income with deals are most in demand, and also a place to focus on--especially with an eye to bringing in residents and improving schools. What about the area around Catholic U, or Ward 8. So much opportunity there!

I am pretty sure housing in Ward 3 is more expensive per square foot than in the other lower density wards (IE not Ward 2)

There is plenty of development happening near CU, and some even in Ward 8. Not sure what you mean by new development improving schools. If its about more $ for schools, surely new development in W3 will do that. Do you mean changing "the mix of students"?

Ward 3 schools are in good shape. New money will go to all schools wherever development happened. School improvement in Dc has generally followed the flow of middle class families moving into neighborhoods and into schools. Most likely to improve would be mixed income, not high income hoods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:prices are high but so are incomes. practically everyone here makes a lot more money than they would doing the same job in most other places in this country. the only way to tell whether housing is expensive is to compare the cost of housing to how much people earn.

harvard has done that, and it suggests that while housing prices here are high, they're not as high as they are in denver or arizona or oregon (let alone places like new york city and san francisco and boston)

https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/home-price-income-ratios

Housing is cheaper here than it looks.

Not just because incomes for pretty much everyone are so high, but also because the public transportation system is so well developed -- people here don't need to spend nearly so much on cars.

The vast majority of the metro area (and even some parts of DC) its hard to get along without a car. The places where it is easiest to do so, sell/rent at even more of a premium.

Fort Totten is a metro station. Lots of bus too. great bus lines on 16th street. Why are these areas not being folded into this density drive?

There is new development at Fort Totten metro.

[Anonymous]

Upzoning is stupid.

It won't make any difference to housing prices because there's, ahem, six million people in the suburbs and they all want better commutes.

And it will push out people with children. People with kids don't want to live in condos/apartments and people who don't have kids don't want to live near them in condos/apartments.

This whole upzoning debate is a giant waste of time.

You should debate things that will actually work.

[Anonymous]

Oh OP, yes we have higher incomes but it's not proportionate to the cost of housing. We make $275/year and can't afford a 1200 sq ft, 3br craphole in zone for Wilson. Do a search for 3 bedroom homes or apartments under $1M in the city and see what dangerous part of town you end up in. We live in a tiny apartment with two kids and no car. We have no student loans and we don't take vacations. We save pretty well for retirement, but we need to because from 25-35 we were unable to save much. I am not willing to move to Columbia Heights or Petworth since I have young children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Half the city though is not livable because of high crime and terrible schools. It's easy to state things aren't expensive when you are looking across all values when half the properties included are in very high crime areas. No one wants to raise their family in an area where you have to risk life and death just to save on a mortgage.

Racist much?

I still have 9 pages to go through, but how in the world is this racist???? I'm sure you live in the middle of Anacostia to prove you're not racist, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh OP, yes we have higher incomes but it's not proportionate to the cost of housing. We make $275/year and can't afford a 1200 sq ft, 3br craphole in zone for Wilson. Do a search for 3 bedroom homes or apartments under $1M in the city and see what dangerous part of town you end up in. We live in a tiny apartment with two kids and no car. We have no student loans and we don't take vacations. We save pretty well for retirement, but we need to because from 25-35 we were unable to save much. I am not willing to move to Columbia Heights or Petworth since I have young children.

There are loads of young children in Columbia heights, but understand if you want to have school access without lottery worries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Upzoning is stupid.

It won't make any difference to housing prices because there's, ahem, six million people in the suburbs and they all want better commutes.

!!!

They do NOT all want to be close in DC. By a long shot.

A huge number of them WORK in the suburbs. In Bethesda. In Rosslyn. In Crystal City. At the Pentagon. In Old Town Alexandria. In West Alexandria. At Fort Belvoir. In Tysons (over 100,000 jobs there!) In Reston. Near Dulles. In Ashburn. In Suitland. In New Carrolton.

Of the people who DO commute to DC, there are lots of people who just do not like DC for one reason or another, that would not be offset if housing prices were cheaper. And of course plenty who would move to DC for a detached SFH, but will never move into a 6 story condo building, or an ADU.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Upzoning is stupid.

It won't make any difference to housing prices because there's, ahem, six million people in the suburbs and they all want better commutes.

And it will push out people with children. People with kids don't want to live in condos/apartments and people who don't have kids don't want to live near them in condos/apartments.

This whole upzoning debate is a giant waste of time.

You should debate things that will actually work.

I am empty nester. I live in a building in an inner suburb that children. It's fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Half the city though is not livable because of high crime and terrible schools. It's easy to state things aren't expensive when you are looking across all values when half the properties included are in very high crime areas. No one wants to raise their family in an area where you have to risk life and death just to save on a mortgage.

Racist much?

I still have 9 pages to go through, but how in the world is this racist???? I'm sure you live in the middle of Anacostia to prove you're not racist, right?

"Half the city is not livable"

Hmmm, what percentage of DC is black?

Oh yes, half.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Upzoning is stupid.

It won't make any difference to housing prices because there's, ahem, six million people in the suburbs and they all want better commutes.

!!!

They do NOT all want to be close in DC. By a long shot.

A huge number of them WORK in the suburbs. In Bethesda. In Rosslyn. In Crystal City. At the Pentagon. In Old Town Alexandria. In West Alexandria. At Fort Belvoir. In Tysons (over 100,000 jobs there!) In Reston. Near Dulles. In Ashburn. In Suitland. In New Carrolton.

Of the people who DO commute to DC, there are lots of people who just do not like DC for one reason or another, that would not be offset if housing prices were cheaper. And of course plenty who would move to DC for a detached SFH, but will never move into a 6 story condo building, or an ADU.

There's only 300,000 housing units in DC.

How many do you think can realistically be added over the next ten years? 30,000? Let's say those 30,000 units will hold 100,000 people. What's 100,000 divided by six million? 1.6 percent.

You don't think 1.6 percent of the people in the suburbs would happily move into the city?

There's so much wishful thinking behind this upzoning stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:prices are high but so are incomes. practically everyone here makes a lot more money than they would doing the same job in most other places in this country. the only way to tell whether housing is expensive is to compare the cost of housing to how much people earn.

harvard has done that, and it suggests that while housing prices here are high, they're not as high as they are in denver or arizona or oregon (let alone places like new york city and san francisco and boston)

https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/home-price-income-ratios

Housing is cheaper here than it looks.

Not just because incomes for pretty much everyone are so high, but also because the public transportation system is so well developed -- people here don't need to spend nearly so much on cars.

That might be true but on our $200k HHI we got a heckuva nicer place in Florida than we ever could have dreamed of in DC. We looked at what was in our price range in DC and despaired at our options. Here, we had *so many* nice options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Half the city though is not livable because of high crime and terrible schools. It's easy to state things aren't expensive when you are looking across all values when half the properties included are in very high crime areas. No one wants to raise their family in an area where you have to risk life and death just to save on a mortgage.

Racist much?

I still have 9 pages to go through, but how in the world is this racist???? I'm sure you live in the middle of Anacostia to prove you're not racist, right?

"Half the city is not livable"

Hmmm, what percentage of DC is black?

Oh yes, half.

This is what dissuades anyone middle/upper middles class - black, white, or other--from living in parts of DC. This and school performance. Not transport.