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

[Anonymous]

There are 3000 homes in DC listed in zillow this morning. A 3bd and2bath townhouse with nice photo is listed for $299k was on top of the list when I searched for 3 bedroom home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are 3000 homes in DC listed in zillow this morning. A 3bd and2bath townhouse with nice photo is listed for $299k was on top of the list when I searched for 3 bedroom home.

BUT we need to knock down historical homes in shady Cleveland Park to build condos!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"condo: $279,900 2 bd1 ba944 sqft Georgia Ave NW, Washington, DC 20012" - why can't Pete live where? Or the 1,000s of units like it already available in DC?

Agree! That's the issue in a nutshell. I hear people cry how the middle class can't afford to live here, but what they mean is that the middle class can't afford to live in the expensive neighborhoods of DC.

Also, who says they have to live in DC at all? Upper Georgia Avenue is the pitts, IMO. Many moderate-earning people could instead choose to buy a little condo in Gaithersburg or Springfield and commute in. Or, they could decide they want the convenience of DC and live in a less desirable area, like upper Georgia Avenue. Or.....they could move north just a little bit, into downtown Silver Spring, and buy an old but affordable condo there. Lots of options.

Still me. LOTS of condos in downtown Silver Spring, less than a mile from the DC line. Here's a 3-bedroom that sold for $200,000.

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1220-Blair-Mill-Rd-900-Silver-Spring-MD-20910/2100141385_zpid/

Oops. Just realized the one I quoted above was a "sold", back in 2019. So here's an example of a CURRENT 3-bedroom condo on sale for $200,000, also in Silver Spring.

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/8830-Piney-Branch-Rd-APT-612-Silver-Spring-MD-20903/37325990_zpid/

But my friends from College won't think I'm cool if I live there!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ Also, the more SFHs GGW knocks down, won't the remaining become that much more expensive and unobtainable?

Knocking down SFHs will only drive people out of the City. What makes DC unique is that it has multiple neighborhoods of SFHs. And guess who pays the taxes-the owners of those homes.

Last time I checked, 4 300k units in a rowhouse is cheaper than a single 2 million dollar rowhouse.

Wanna check my math?

If you were a developer, would you build 4 units at 300k each or one at 2 million? Construction costs would be about the same, probably a little higher for the 4-unit configuration because you'd need more HVAC systems and appliances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ Also, the more SFHs GGW knocks down, won't the remaining become that much more expensive and unobtainable?

Knocking down SFHs will only drive people out of the City. What makes DC unique is that it has multiple neighborhoods of SFHs. And guess who pays the taxes-the owners of those homes.

Last time I checked, 4 300k units in a rowhouse is cheaper than a single 2 million dollar rowhouse.

Wanna check my math?

If you were a developer, would you build 4 units at 300k each or one at 2 million? Construction costs would be about the same, probably a little higher for the 4-unit configuration because you'd need more HVAC systems and appliances.

If that’s true, why are people concerned about changes to zoning? You’re arguing the market will still favor SFHs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ Also, the more SFHs GGW knocks down, won't the remaining become that much more expensive and unobtainable?

Knocking down SFHs will only drive people out of the City. What makes DC unique is that it has multiple neighborhoods of SFHs. And guess who pays the taxes-the owners of those homes.

Replacing one unit with three or four would be a net gain in residents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ Also, the more SFHs GGW knocks down, won't the remaining become that much more expensive and unobtainable?

Knocking down SFHs will only drive people out of the City. What makes DC unique is that it has multiple neighborhoods of SFHs. And guess who pays the taxes-the owners of those homes.

Replacing one unit with three or four would be a net gain in residents.

Yep, this is the old DC model - uninterested in families. Too costly and demanding. GGW and the Mayor would prefer a city of only singletons + childless couples or roomates. The city's social fabric whatever hipsters do for fun these days , yoga, dog parks, outdoor eateries where you take your life in your hands . Kids, older people rattling around an empty nest etc. Apply elsewhere .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ Also, the more SFHs GGW knocks down, won't the remaining become that much more expensive and unobtainable?

Knocking down SFHs will only drive people out of the City. What makes DC unique is that it has multiple neighborhoods of SFHs. And guess who pays the taxes-the owners of those homes.

Replacing one unit with three or four would be a net gain in residents.

Yep, this is the old DC model - uninterested in families. Too costly and demanding. GGW and the Mayor would prefer a city of only singletons + childless couples or roomates. The city's social fabric whatever hipsters do for fun these days , yoga, dog parks, outdoor eateries where you take your life in your hands . Kids, older people rattling around an empty nest etc. Apply elsewhere .

Families in SFHs are the most costly for jurisdictions. But a zoning change will still leave plenty of SFHs and families can live in condos too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ Also, the more SFHs GGW knocks down, won't the remaining become that much more expensive and unobtainable?

Knocking down SFHs will only drive people out of the City. What makes DC unique is that it has multiple neighborhoods of SFHs. And guess who pays the taxes-the owners of those homes.

Last time I checked, 4 300k units in a rowhouse is cheaper than a single 2 million dollar rowhouse.

Wanna check my math?

If you were a developer, would you build 4 units at 300k each or one at 2 million? Construction costs would be about the same, probably a little higher for the 4-unit configuration because you'd need more HVAC systems and appliances.

If that’s true, why are people concerned about changes to zoning? You’re arguing the market will still favor SFHs.

Probably because they don’t understand the business. To compensate for the risk premium of having to sell four units instead of one and the additional building costs, a developer would probably need to charge at least an average of $550,000 for each of the four units. (I’m not sure there is or will be in the next 10 years a mass market for these units at this price in neighborhoods where a new SFH can go for $2 million, because these units would be competing with mid- and high-rise rentals nearby and larger homes at a similar price not much further out. It’s a nice idea in theory and I would prefer a denser neighborhood with more services and retail within walking distance, but I’m not sure we’re going to see it at scale. Not a reason not to upzone, but upzoning alone is not going to increase housing deliveries by much.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ Also, the more SFHs GGW knocks down, won't the remaining become that much more expensive and unobtainable?

Knocking down SFHs will only drive people out of the City. What makes DC unique is that it has multiple neighborhoods of SFHs. And guess who pays the taxes-the owners of those homes.

Last time I checked, 4 300k units in a rowhouse is cheaper than a single 2 million dollar rowhouse.

Wanna check my math?

If you were a developer, would you build 4 units at 300k each or one at 2 million? Construction costs would be about the same, probably a little higher for the 4-unit configuration because you'd need more HVAC systems and appliances.

If that’s true, why are people concerned about changes to zoning? You’re arguing the market will still favor SFHs.

Probably because they don’t understand the business. To compensate for the risk premium of having to sell four units instead of one and the additional building costs, a developer would probably need to charge at least an average of $550,000 for each of the four units. (I’m not sure there is or will be in the next 10 years a mass market for these units at this price in neighborhoods where a new SFH can go for $2 million, because these units would be competing with mid- and high-rise rentals nearby and larger homes at a similar price not much further out. It’s a nice idea in theory and I would prefer a denser neighborhood with more services and retail within walking distance, but I’m not sure we’re going to see it at scale. Not a reason not to upzone, but upzoning alone is not going to increase housing deliveries by much.)

Retail within walking distance would probably have to charge higher prices, than larger retail not too far away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ Also, the more SFHs GGW knocks down, won't the remaining become that much more expensive and unobtainable?

Knocking down SFHs will only drive people out of the City. What makes DC unique is that it has multiple neighborhoods of SFHs. And guess who pays the taxes-the owners of those homes.

Replacing one unit with three or four would be a net gain in residents.

Yep, this is the old DC model - uninterested in families. Too costly and demanding. GGW and the Mayor would prefer a city of only singletons + childless couples or roomates. The city's social fabric whatever hipsters do for fun these days , yoga, dog parks, outdoor eateries where you take your life in your hands . Kids, older people rattling around an empty nest etc. Apply elsewhere .

Families in SFHs are the most costly for jurisdictions. But a zoning change will still leave plenty of SFHs and families can live in condos too.

BS. A single family living in a SFH is not more costly than 3-4 families living in a condo building. Moreover, I promise you that single family living in that SFH in Upper NW DC will be paying more taxes than those 4 families combined. Lets get real. The top 5-10% do not want to raise their families in condo buildings. They will simply leave the City, taking their tax dollars with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^ Also, the more SFHs GGW knocks down, won't the remaining become that much more expensive and unobtainable?

Knocking down SFHs will only drive people out of the City. What makes DC unique is that it has multiple neighborhoods of SFHs. And guess who pays the taxes-the owners of those homes.

Replacing one unit with three or four would be a net gain in residents.

DC has fewer residents today than it did in 1950. DC is not growing anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are 3000 homes in DC listed in zillow this morning. A 3bd and2bath townhouse with nice photo is listed for $299k was on top of the list when I searched for 3 bedroom home.

BUT we need to knock down historical homes in shady Cleveland Park to build condos!

Please show proof of a historic house in Cleveland Park being razed for condos. (or being razed for any reason, for that matter)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are 3000 homes in DC listed in zillow this morning. A 3bd and2bath townhouse with nice photo is listed for $299k was on top of the list when I searched for 3 bedroom home.

BUT we need to knock down historical homes in shady Cleveland Park to build condos!

Please show proof of a historic house in Cleveland Park being razed for condos. (or being razed for any reason, for that matter)

By historic I mean character, charm and old / un recoverable if razed because "we just don't make them like that anymore" in terms of labor and craftsmanship. Most of the homes in CP, AU Park, Tenleytown, Chevy Chase qualify - even if they haven't gone through the onerous historical process, they are certainly worth preserving. Take a walk around the tree lined streets and you will see everything from turn of the century mansions, to 1920s duplexes in various "styles" popular at the time like Spanish revival or Georgian neo classical, to craftsman cottages, to mid century ranches. The unprotected by historical status are slowly being chiseled away at by McMansion types that you typically would find in Bethesda, GGW and the vibrant density folks would like to add on to the effect by clearing the way (of these homes) to build small apartment buildings up to the sidewalk (no front lawns which they consider wasted space). This would take the neighborhood described and turn it into an innocuous anywhere USA. For an example of something that was "saved" from developers, MacLean Gardens was on the chopping block in the 70s from a previous wave of development zeal. It was saved and most people would agree it provides a ton of charming homes and condos and rentals in an entry to mid priced range. Low profile, leafy, and very neighborhoody.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are 3000 homes in DC listed in zillow this morning. A 3bd and2bath townhouse with nice photo is listed for $299k was on top of the list when I searched for 3 bedroom home.

BUT we need to knock down historical homes in shady Cleveland Park to build condos!

Please show proof of a historic house in Cleveland Park being razed for condos. (or being razed for any reason, for that matter)

Several have been razed in recent years. There was an historic house that a develop bought and "by mistake" undermined the house during renovation and got DCRA to issue an "emergency" demolition order over a weekend. The developer then got to build a brand new expanded house. More recent instances involve flipper/developers ignoring approved plans and completely modifying the structures. DC then lets it go. In San Francisco, they would make a developer tear down or off anything that wasn't built according to plans. DCRA must stand for the Developer Comfort and Rescue Administration.