We need homes. A lot of homes. Not just affordable, but also middle-income homes.

[Anonymous]

Legalize building stuff on your own property.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd be glad to live in a 2BR + Den home in a 12 story building if it's got easy access to:
a place to grill and eat outdoors
a place to keep bicycles and kayaks and canoes where they won't be stolen
a place for my kids to run and play with sticks and dirt
a place for my kids to climb and swing and play with other
kids
(these have to be free from harrassment by addicted and unpoliced homeless and distant from their uninspected 'homes' and latrines.)
a place to grow corn and pumpkins and peppers and tomatoes
a place to build stuff like boats and furniture and gadgets
a place to ride bikes in the woods
schools that focus on empowering learners and meeting each student's needs rather than "narrowing the gap", which necessarily de-emphasizing supporting those at the top of the gap.


All of this leads to the suburbs. Far suburbs, really.

it's because the apartment buildings built here are built for single people or DINKs. I have relatives in Europe living in great apartment buildings in close-in suburbs geared towards families--3 bedrooms, large balcony, separate storage space in garage, garage parking, playground and tennis courts right outside, close to a park. Honestly, I would have preferred that type of living situation where I don't have to take care of a yard or anything, but have the space and amenities for a young family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd be glad to live in a 2BR + Den home in a 12 story building if it's got easy access to:
a place to grill and eat outdoors
a place to keep bicycles and kayaks and canoes where they won't be stolen
a place for my kids to run and play with sticks and dirt
a place for my kids to climb and swing and play with other
kids
(these have to be free from harrassment by addicted and unpoliced homeless and distant from their uninspected 'homes' and latrines.)
a place to grow corn and pumpkins and peppers and tomatoes
a place to build stuff like boats and furniture and gadgets
a place to ride bikes in the woods
schools that focus on empowering learners and meeting each student's needs rather than "narrowing the gap", which necessarily de-emphasizing supporting those at the top of the gap.


All of this leads to the suburbs. Far suburbs, really.

it's because the apartment buildings built here are built for single people or DINKs. I have relatives in Europe living in great apartment buildings in close-in suburbs geared towards families--3 bedrooms, large balcony, separate storage space in garage, garage parking, playground and tennis courts right outside, close to a park. Honestly, I would have preferred that type of living situation where I don't have to take care of a yard or anything, but have the space and amenities for a young family.

Yes to all of this. It’s very American to assume all families want a detached SFH with a yard. But it’s not the norm in most of the world and there are lots of advantages to multi-family housing. But you have to build housing that is conducive to family life. Interestingly, you actually can find this on many of DC’s older buildings, including the big old buildings along 16th, Conn Ave, and Wisc Ave. Also in some parts of Capitol Hill. But the age of the buildings often means no in-unit laundry or even centralized air. And new buildings are designed for professionals without kids, and can even be hostile to kids. It’s really a lost opportunity. I love apartment living with kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree DC needs more middle income housing. While we are building more townhomes and condos, the townhomes are still often out of reach for true middle income people (HHI <150-180k). And most condos in the city are not built for families (few units with more than 2 bedrooms, emphasis on amenities likely to appeal to childless professionals but not necessarily to families). All the incentives in DC are to build high end units with a small footprint so as to squeeze as much profit as possible out of real estate.

There are some incentives for low-income and subsidized units, but developers seek to merely qualify for the bare minimum of these, and middle income folks often don’t qualify.

It us very hard to find adequate housing in DC for a middle income family. Close in suburbs are often no better because while there is more family housing, it is largely less dense and therefore no more accessible. Far out suburbs are cheaper and have family housing, but long commutes are particularly hard on families due to childcare needs and the importance of family time on the health and well-being of kids and marriages. And mid-income people are often less able to work remotely because they are more likely to work in service jobs (teaching, non-doctor healthcare roles) or customer-facing industries (food, retail, events).

So yes, we need more duplex and triplexes, more pop ups, more 3+ bedroom apartments, more townhouses near public transit.

Notice I’m not even saying we need this stuff near “good” schools or in more desirable neighborhoods. Families will accept middling schools and less perfect neighborhoods if they can just get on the property ladder. Right now, other than EOTR, and a handful of far NE and SE neighborhoods WOTR (many of which have poor transit options) there are very few options. And prices in places like Hyattsville, Silver Spring, and Mt. Rainier are rapidly moving out of reach as well.

If your only options for housing in DC for a family of 4 with an HHI of 150k involve an hour plus commute, people will just choose to leave.

I don’t understand the point. Infill development is expensive and is always expensive. The only incentive is build for “luxury”. To build for “middle income” you need low input costs. Those come from cheap land and cheap materials. Why do people try to deny basic economic reality?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd be glad to live in a 2BR + Den home in a 12 story building if it's got easy access to:
a place to grill and eat outdoors
a place to keep bicycles and kayaks and canoes where they won't be stolen
a place for my kids to run and play with sticks and dirt
a place for my kids to climb and swing and play with other
kids
(these have to be free from harrassment by addicted and unpoliced homeless and distant from their uninspected 'homes' and latrines.)
a place to grow corn and pumpkins and peppers and tomatoes
a place to build stuff like boats and furniture and gadgets
a place to ride bikes in the woods
schools that focus on empowering learners and meeting each student's needs rather than "narrowing the gap", which necessarily de-emphasizing supporting those at the top of the gap.


All of this leads to the suburbs. Far suburbs, really.

it's because the apartment buildings built here are built for single people or DINKs. I have relatives in Europe living in great apartment buildings in close-in suburbs geared towards families--3 bedrooms, large balcony, separate storage space in garage, garage parking, playground and tennis courts right outside, close to a park. Honestly, I would have preferred that type of living situation where I don't have to take care of a yard or anything, but have the space and amenities for a young family.

Yes to all of this. It’s very American to assume all families want a detached SFH with a yard. But it’s not the norm in most of the world and there are lots of advantages to multi-family housing. But you have to build housing that is conducive to family life. Interestingly, you actually can find this on many of DC’s older buildings, including the big old buildings along 16th, Conn Ave, and Wisc Ave. Also in some parts of Capitol Hill. But the age of the buildings often means no in-unit laundry or even centralized air. And new buildings are designed for professionals without kids, and can even be hostile to kids. It’s really a lost opportunity. I love apartment living with kids.

If you buy a SFH in an area with SFHs, that is what you want your neighborhood to be like. Very simple. This P suggests finding areas, even in DC, where you can build 100-200 townhouses. Given the numbers, those townhouses are unlikely to be high end ones. Convert some commercial property.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If you buy a SFH in an area with SFHs, that is what you want your neighborhood to be like. Very simple. This P suggests finding areas, even in DC, where you can build 100-200 townhouses. Given the numbers, those townhouses are unlikely to be high end ones. Convert some commercial property.

Unless you own every SFH in your neighborhood, you don’t have control. Neighborhoods are always changing. The one thing that remains the same is current residents complaining about those changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd be glad to live in a 2BR + Den home in a 12 story building if it's got easy access to:
a place to grill and eat outdoors
a place to keep bicycles and kayaks and canoes where they won't be stolen
a place for my kids to run and play with sticks and dirt
a place for my kids to climb and swing and play with other
kids
(these have to be free from harrassment by addicted and unpoliced homeless and distant from their uninspected 'homes' and latrines.)
a place to grow corn and pumpkins and peppers and tomatoes
a place to build stuff like boats and furniture and gadgets
a place to ride bikes in the woods
schools that focus on empowering learners and meeting each student's needs rather than "narrowing the gap", which necessarily de-emphasizing supporting those at the top of the gap.


All of this leads to the suburbs. Far suburbs, really.

it's because the apartment buildings built here are built for single people or DINKs. I have relatives in Europe living in great apartment buildings in close-in suburbs geared towards families--3 bedrooms, large balcony, separate storage space in garage, garage parking, playground and tennis courts right outside, close to a park. Honestly, I would have preferred that type of living situation where I don't have to take care of a yard or anything, but have the space and amenities for a young family.

That's right. All of the "luxury" apartments built here are built for the sole purpose of maximizing developer profits and there are a core group of people who basically lie to support developers getting rich while the built environment is increasingly not suited to a respectable quality of life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you buy a SFH in an area with SFHs, that is what you want your neighborhood to be like. Very simple. This P suggests finding areas, even in DC, where you can build 100-200 townhouses. Given the numbers, those townhouses are unlikely to be high end ones. Convert some commercial property.

Unless you own every SFH in your neighborhood, you don’t have control. Neighborhoods are always changing. The one thing that remains the same is current residents complaining about those changes.

And why do you want to change someone else's neighborhood? Get a life!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

We need homes. A lot of homes. Not just affordable housing, but also middle-income ones, and even luxury homes. I agree with virtually every word of Hayley Bonsteel’s excellent piece for The Urbanist titled “How to Finetune Rep. Macri’s Single-Family Rezone Bill.” I have long been opposed to single-family zoning (not housing), for a number reasons but largely because of its malicious history. Bonsteel is correct in that we must return to our abundant housing roots.

However, abolishing single-family zoning will barely move the needle on our housing crisis. We can’t duplex and triplex our way out of this—though it’s a good step since we do need more diverse types of housing, and rapidly. The decades long fight just to add, and then liberalize accessory dwelling units, or re-legalize duplexes and small apartments in now single-family zones, will pale in comparison to the needed shift.

We sit at the threshold of a decades long housing crisis, and a steepening climate crisis (one our mayor seems wholly unprepared to take on). The region includes some of the smartest and most sophisticated companies in the world, but rather than come to terms with the depth of the scale of this crisis, we put on blinders.

https://www.theurbanist.org/2020/01/29/housing-action-on-a-truly-massive-scale/

(2020)

About Seattle, but every word applies to the DC area EXCEPT that Seattle is farther along on zoning reform than we are.

We first need to upzone single family home lots.
That means Takoma Park. And Bethesda. And Ward 3 DC. Allow duplexes, triplexes, pop ups, and ADUs.

Then we need even more homes than that.

And if we don’t do all these things, average people will be priced out of anything within 90min of DC.

This sounds good on paper. But in the real world people who can afford single family homes in DC clearly have options. They will put up with some changes around the edges, but if you threaten their quality of life they will move. Look at how well busing worked in the 1970s. It took cities about 30 years to recover from that mistake. Some have never recovered. Let’s not try that again.

[Anonymous]

There is massive development all around Nats stadium as well as downtown Bethesda. Why do you need to tear down old homes, trees and green spaces in Ward 3?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What do you think all of the townhomes, pseudo townhomes, and condos are? That’s middle housing and DMV is an outlier that it is actually building it.

What you socialists forget though is the market. Many don’t want to live with shared walls and overcrowded streets, far from jobs. At least not at the minimum price point that these things can be built for. That’s why there is a lack of housing at an entry level.

That and starter homes are a terrible investment and for condos basically entrapment.

In other areas, when home prices exceed what the majority of the market can pay, developers are building smaller to meet the price point.

Again it’s the market. Not just zoning, which is relatively permissive when it comes to density around here.

Never mind you or anyone else can buy in Anacostia right now. Super affordable. The problem is everything else, like safety and schools. Not zoning.

The simple answer is to take 10-20 acres and building 200 plus townhouses. Create a nice townhouse community. Given the number (200), there are unlikely to be super end. Create an incentive for a builder to make them middle income. There are plenty of places along in DC and along Rockville Pike where you can these communities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd be glad to live in a 2BR + Den home in a 12 story building if it's got easy access to:
a place to grill and eat outdoors
a place to keep bicycles and kayaks and canoes where they won't be stolen
a place for my kids to run and play with sticks and dirt
a place for my kids to climb and swing and play with other
kids
(these have to be free from harrassment by addicted and unpoliced homeless and distant from their uninspected 'homes' and latrines.)
a place to grow corn and pumpkins and peppers and tomatoes
a place to build stuff like boats and furniture and gadgets
a place to ride bikes in the woods
schools that focus on empowering learners and meeting each student's needs rather than "narrowing the gap", which necessarily de-emphasizing supporting those at the top of the gap.


All of this leads to the suburbs. Far suburbs, really.

it's because the apartment buildings built here are built for single people or DINKs. I have relatives in Europe living in great apartment buildings in close-in suburbs geared towards families--3 bedrooms, large balcony, separate storage space in garage, garage parking, playground and tennis courts right outside, close to a park. Honestly, I would have preferred that type of living situation where I don't have to take care of a yard or anything, but have the space and amenities for a young family.

That's right. All of the "luxury" apartments built here are built for the sole purpose of maximizing developer profits and there are a core group of people who basically lie to support developers getting rich while the built environment is increasingly not suited to a respectable quality of life.

Wow, what a "evil developer" conspiracy you have going on. Question, was your home built by an evil "developer"?

Thought so.

[Anonymous]

Aren’t there affordable nice homes like out in Loudoun or Frederick Counties?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree DC needs more middle income housing. While we are building more townhomes and condos, the townhomes are still often out of reach for true middle income people (HHI <150-180k). And most condos in the city are not built for families (few units with more than 2 bedrooms, emphasis on amenities likely to appeal to childless professionals but not necessarily to families). All the incentives in DC are to build high end units with a small footprint so as to squeeze as much profit as possible out of real estate.

There are some incentives for low-income and subsidized units, but developers seek to merely qualify for the bare minimum of these, and middle income folks often don’t qualify.

It us very hard to find adequate housing in DC for a middle income family. Close in suburbs are often no better because while there is more family housing, it is largely less dense and therefore no more accessible. Far out suburbs are cheaper and have family housing, but long commutes are particularly hard on families due to childcare needs and the importance of family time on the health and well-being of kids and marriages. And mid-income people are often less able to work remotely because they are more likely to work in service jobs (teaching, non-doctor healthcare roles) or customer-facing industries (food, retail, events).

So yes, we need more duplex and triplexes, more pop ups, more 3+ bedroom apartments, more townhouses near public transit.

Notice I’m not even saying we need this stuff near “good” schools or in more desirable neighborhoods. Families will accept middling schools and less perfect neighborhoods if they can just get on the property ladder. Right now, other than EOTR, and a handful of far NE and SE neighborhoods WOTR (many of which have poor transit options) there are very few options. And prices in places like Hyattsville, Silver Spring, and Mt. Rainier are rapidly moving out of reach as well.

If your only options for housing in DC for a family of 4 with an HHI of 150k involve an hour plus commute, people will just choose to leave.

Then leave. Plenty of us put up with crappy commutes when we were young to move up the property ladder. We’ve traded up four times and are now in a very nice neighborhood with a good commute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you think all of the townhomes, pseudo townhomes, and condos are? That’s middle housing and DMV is an outlier that it is actually building it.

What you socialists forget though is the market. Many don’t want to live with shared walls and overcrowded streets, far from jobs. At least not at the minimum price point that these things can be built for. That’s why there is a lack of housing at an entry level.

That and starter homes are a terrible investment and for condos basically entrapment.

In other areas, when home prices exceed what the majority of the market can pay, developers are building smaller to meet the price point.

Again it’s the market. Not just zoning, which is relatively permissive when it comes to density around here.

Never mind you or anyone else can buy in Anacostia right now. Super affordable. The problem is everything else, like safety and schools. Not zoning.

The simple answer is to take 10-20 acres and building 200 plus townhouses. Create a nice townhouse community. Given the number (200), there are unlikely to be super end. Create an incentive for a builder to make them middle income. There are plenty of places along in DC and along Rockville Pike where you can these communities.

If you drive up 270, you’ll see tons of places like this. Farmers sell off their land to developers. That is really the property exchange that makes this possible. Simply refining gets you a weird hodgepodge when some homeowners sell to developers and some don’t. If city planners want denser housing they should pay people out and raze a neighborhood to build what they are looking for.