Missing middle- Arlington

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't move to a SFH within close distance to a 4-plex or 6-plex. If I wanted density, I wouldn't be choosing a SFH.

As someone who lives in Ashton Heights, we already have missing middle housing in parts of the neighborhood — particularly the blocks closer to Clarendon — and people are building new $3 million + houses and consistently buying homes in the $1.5 - 2.5 million right near these Multifamily building with 4-10 units. The same thing is happening in Lyon Park and Lyon Village. Honestly my guess is having to spend $1.25 - 1.5 million for a lot in these neighborhoods is going to lead to high end condos and rentals built in those new 6 plexes. Right now there are a number of terrible single family home rentals with loud 20 something’s partying and being very loud. My guess is the new neighbors “fit” in the neighborhood more and the end result is people will be happier. All of this is much ado about nothing. And to the poster that said people don’t move to Arlington for an urban experience, give me a break! Nearly 3/4 of our residents already live in Multifamily housing.

This. You may not want to live near a multiplex, but plenty of people don’t mind, and they are paying millions. We live next door to a world class city. The 20 somethings are probably about to be priced out from those group houses…

No offense, but you need to think about this more. Look at the two neighborhoods you listed...do they have a common denominator that you won't find in other areas of Arlington previously zoned exclusively for SFH? To point out the obvious: proximity to the Metro. Clarendon and Ballston are thriving areas with wonderful amenities nearby that simply won't be replicated across the county. Indeed, they're not even being replicated in other metro-adjacent neighborhoods.

Additionally, when you're talking about new builds or existing homes going for millions in these neighborhoods, how close are they to multi-family dwellings? Are we talking about homes that are on the same block? Right next door to multi-dwelling units? I think it's fairly obvious that isn't the case even if homes are selling in the same broader neighborhood for millions. Which, again, is not to say those homes will not appreciate in value. They will...but not at the same rate as homes removed from multi-dwelling units.

The point being this: it's completely fine to support MMH if you believe the pros outweigh the cons. But, can we stop pretending that the cons don't exist? Someone will absolutely lose if multi-dwelling units spread in non-metro adjacent neighborhoods across Arlington. It will almost certainly be existing SFH owners with units right next to new multi-family dwellings. If, from your perspective, the loss to the SFH owner is outweighed by the benefit of denser housing so be it. Let's just be honest in the assessment.

My problem with MMH isn't the potential impact on SFH owners in Arlington (of which, I am one). It's that no thought is being given to why additional density is desirable in Arlington in the first place let alone the potential impact on community services, infrastructure, and so forth. Additionally, if we are going to have greater density, I want a housing program that prioritizes current Arlington residents stay in place (e.g. help Arlington renters become Arlington homeowners) with a focus on lower-income residents. Multi-dwelling units, owned by a housing trust established by Arlington County, with first-time homebuyer assistance for Arlington residents that have lived in Arlington for 5+ years would be fantastic. If Arlington County doesn't have that authority...why isn't it fighting tooth and nail for it from the state government?

As it stands, Arlington's MMH program is a giveaway to developers that will achieve greater density without greater socio-economic diversity or even greater homeownership in Arlington. The County's answer to everything is "the market" will determine what happens...and this coming from Democrats that otherwise should know that the "market" will put profits over people every single time. As a Democrat, that alone is infuriating. Developers will tear down SFH and then replace them with 4-6plexes that will either be rented out at market rate or sold for more money than the average Arlingtonian can reasonably afford.

Are you looking at the big picture, like the population growth that is expected in our region in the next 15 years? That means even more buyers at all levels, including SFHs. Arlington is an inner suburb. I wouldn’t worry too much.

Where can one find this information? What are the growth expectations? Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sure I’ll regret asking, but I was a little surprised to see all the 4 and 6 plexes in the Arl Now article. I expected duplexes and 3 unit townhomes to dominate.

Anyone have the scoop on these plexes? Are they all 1 bedrooms and mostly going to be rentals? I’m curious.

Why would you expect anything different?

All SFH are now buildable lots.

Maximizing profits (or penalty for the opportunity cost) you use your allotment.

Moreover because this is all custom, high cost, there aren’t many people who can afford a SFH rent or own, so singles it goes to bring down the unit price.

Then consider that the homes prioritized for this development are at the bottom of the market (entry level homes) which raises the barrier to entry and creates pressure on the remaining market.

Everything about this scam works against affordability and homeownership.

+1
Arlingtonians got played.

Nope, their progressiveness just caught up with them and their ballots. They think they want this, they voted for this under the guise of affordable housing and now it's in their own front yards. It's kinda laughable to watch the heads explode.

The majority of our 22207/22213 neighborhoods (most of which are liberal) did not want this.

I disagree. I'm in 22207, and I'd rather have missing middle than the status quo. If we could go back to a time where people weren't allowed to build 3 story houses on basically the entirety of their lots, that's what I want. But we can't go back. Infrastructure is a concern, sure, but as it is, I'm fairly certain that many homeowners skirt the requirement to upgrade pipes if they have a certain number of toilets. I don't know for sure, I'm only surmising based on the absence of dug up front yards when building an addition.

You are an owner?

Can you explain why you’d prefer this? Seems that you’ve had a huge growth in property value over time…and now you’d prefer that someone build a six plex next door, with the accompanying cars, children, and dogs? And all without required off street parking?

I find this hard to believe unless you are just a masochist.

Yes, I am an owner. I will address your points in turn.

(1) Property value growth: I don't see how this decreases my property value. My house likely will be a teardown in any event (it's a perfectly nice house, that's just the way the wind is blowing). A developer will pay more to build more. And if I time the sale when a next-door neighbor sells, even better.

(2) Cars, children, dogs: Many of my current neighbors have more cars than people living in the house, despite the fact that my house is near public transportation. By contrast, a young couple who just moved into the neighborhood share a car. Young couples are the likelier demographic for multi-family, so I don't see there being vastly more cars. Only time will tell how Gen Z approaches parenthood (I can see 2 of my 3 children choosing to forgo parenthood), so the children aspect is a question mark. There will definitely be more dogs.

For what it's worth, I don't think you're taking into account what your property value could be in a neighborhood zoned exclusively for SFH versus a neighborhood zoned for MMH. Will your property value likely increase in either case? Yes. However, will your property value increase at the same rate under both zoning proposals? No, I don't think so. It's ok for you, personally, to accept the diminished return but I wouldn't expect your neighbors to be happy about it.

I’m not the PP, but some people just accept that they aren’t entitled to the level of appreciation we have seen in recent years if we are also in a housing shortage. We are fine with that. It’s just a different perspective.

Speaking of entitled. Some people accept that they aren’t entitled to live anywhere they want, just because they want to. MMH people believe it’s their right to live in close in Arlington (all neighborhoods), even if they are 28 and work for a non profit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sure I’ll regret asking, but I was a little surprised to see all the 4 and 6 plexes in the Arl Now article. I expected duplexes and 3 unit townhomes to dominate.

Anyone have the scoop on these plexes? Are they all 1 bedrooms and mostly going to be rentals? I’m curious.

Why would you expect anything different?

All SFH are now buildable lots.

Maximizing profits (or penalty for the opportunity cost) you use your allotment.

Moreover because this is all custom, high cost, there aren’t many people who can afford a SFH rent or own, so singles it goes to bring down the unit price.

Then consider that the homes prioritized for this development are at the bottom of the market (entry level homes) which raises the barrier to entry and creates pressure on the remaining market.

Everything about this scam works against affordability and homeownership.

+1
Arlingtonians got played.

Nope, their progressiveness just caught up with them and their ballots. They think they want this, they voted for this under the guise of affordable housing and now it's in their own front yards. It's kinda laughable to watch the heads explode.

The majority of our 22207/22213 neighborhoods (most of which are liberal) did not want this.

I disagree. I'm in 22207, and I'd rather have missing middle than the status quo. If we could go back to a time where people weren't allowed to build 3 story houses on basically the entirety of their lots, that's what I want. But we can't go back. Infrastructure is a concern, sure, but as it is, I'm fairly certain that many homeowners skirt the requirement to upgrade pipes if they have a certain number of toilets. I don't know for sure, I'm only surmising based on the absence of dug up front yards when building an addition.

You are an owner?

Can you explain why you’d prefer this? Seems that you’ve had a huge growth in property value over time…and now you’d prefer that someone build a six plex next door, with the accompanying cars, children, and dogs? And all without required off street parking?

I find this hard to believe unless you are just a masochist.

Yes, I am an owner. I will address your points in turn.

(1) Property value growth: I don't see how this decreases my property value. My house likely will be a teardown in any event (it's a perfectly nice house, that's just the way the wind is blowing). A developer will pay more to build more. And if I time the sale when a next-door neighbor sells, even better.

(2) Cars, children, dogs: Many of my current neighbors have more cars than people living in the house, despite the fact that my house is near public transportation. By contrast, a young couple who just moved into the neighborhood share a car. Young couples are the likelier demographic for multi-family, so I don't see there being vastly more cars. Only time will tell how Gen Z approaches parenthood (I can see 2 of my 3 children choosing to forgo parenthood), so the children aspect is a question mark. There will definitely be more dogs.

For what it's worth, I don't think you're taking into account what your property value could be in a neighborhood zoned exclusively for SFH versus a neighborhood zoned for MMH. Will your property value likely increase in either case? Yes. However, will your property value increase at the same rate under both zoning proposals? No, I don't think so. It's ok for you, personally, to accept the diminished return but I wouldn't expect your neighbors to be happy about it.

I’m not the PP, but some people just accept that they aren’t entitled to the level of appreciation we have seen in recent years if we are also in a housing shortage. We are fine with that. It’s just a different perspective.

Speaking of entitled. Some people accept that they aren’t entitled to live anywhere they want, just because they want to. MMH people believe it’s their right to live in close in Arlington (all neighborhoods), even if they are 28 and work for a non profit.

And those people were RIDICULOUS. And I doubt they will be helped by this proposal. But I can separate the various people that spoke up on this issue from what I believe are the economic realities of this region. I’m not worried about putting a clueless 28 year old in their place. The market will do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those in Lyon Park are going to be two bedroom two baths and rentals. If you know the builder, you know he needs passive income.

What does this mean? He's super lazy and so needs an income stream that doesn't require working? Gambling habit?

He's a wealthy builder who needs passive income to offset his federal taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A 6 plex on a tiny lot off george mason and Wilson where there’s hardly parking??

OP here. I guess I’m just wondering- who wants to rent there? What could the rent possibly be? Is it really people who want the schools? Why would you need to rent up there?

My builder is going after the divorced parent market who wants to remain in Arlington for the schools after having to sell the main house as part of the divorce settlement. The rental apartments at Glebe and Langston have many divorced people who rent there for access to the schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A 6 plex on a tiny lot off george mason and Wilson where there’s hardly parking??

OP here. I guess I’m just wondering- who wants to rent there? What could the rent possibly be? Is it really people who want the schools? Why would you need to rent up there?

My builder is going after the divorced parent market who wants to remain in Arlington for the schools after having to sell the main house as part of the divorce settlement. The rental apartments at Glebe and Langston have many divorced people who rent there for access to the schools.

Well I guess that’s one way to help people stay in the community…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sure I’ll regret asking, but I was a little surprised to see all the 4 and 6 plexes in the Arl Now article. I expected duplexes and 3 unit townhomes to dominate.

Anyone have the scoop on these plexes? Are they all 1 bedrooms and mostly going to be rentals? I’m curious.

Why would you expect anything different?

All SFH are now buildable lots.

Maximizing profits (or penalty for the opportunity cost) you use your allotment.

Moreover because this is all custom, high cost, there aren’t many people who can afford a SFH rent or own, so singles it goes to bring down the unit price.

Then consider that the homes prioritized for this development are at the bottom of the market (entry level homes) which raises the barrier to entry and creates pressure on the remaining market.

Everything about this scam works against affordability and homeownership.

+1
Arlingtonians got played.

Nope, their progressiveness just caught up with them and their ballots. They think they want this, they voted for this under the guise of affordable housing and now it's in their own front yards. It's kinda laughable to watch the heads explode.

The majority of our 22207/22213 neighborhoods (most of which are liberal) did not want this.

It is the progressives who wanted it, not the liberals. I am a moderate liberate and enjoying watching the progressive Democrats going after the liberal Democrats. Toss in the Nottingham Elementary School district and we may have to add some more ListServs to our neighborhood to handle the volume.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sure I’ll regret asking, but I was a little surprised to see all the 4 and 6 plexes in the Arl Now article. I expected duplexes and 3 unit townhomes to dominate.

Anyone have the scoop on these plexes? Are they all 1 bedrooms and mostly going to be rentals? I’m curious.

Why would you expect anything different?

All SFH are now buildable lots.

Maximizing profits (or penalty for the opportunity cost) you use your allotment.

Moreover because this is all custom, high cost, there aren’t many people who can afford a SFH rent or own, so singles it goes to bring down the unit price.

Then consider that the homes prioritized for this development are at the bottom of the market (entry level homes) which raises the barrier to entry and creates pressure on the remaining market.

Everything about this scam works against affordability and homeownership.

+1
Arlingtonians got played.

Nope, their progressiveness just caught up with them and their ballots. They think they want this, they voted for this under the guise of affordable housing and now it's in their own front yards. It's kinda laughable to watch the heads explode.

The majority of our 22207/22213 neighborhoods (most of which are liberal) did not want this.

I disagree. I'm in 22207, and I'd rather have missing middle than the status quo. If we could go back to a time where people weren't allowed to build 3 story houses on basically the entirety of their lots, that's what I want. But we can't go back. Infrastructure is a concern, sure, but as it is, I'm fairly certain that many homeowners skirt the requirement to upgrade pipes if they have a certain number of toilets. I don't know for sure, I'm only surmising based on the absence of dug up front yards when building an addition.

You only have to add a water line if you are adding the fourth toilet. That's were "the help" toilets in the old basements are such a blessing. Two bathrooms upstairs, a half bath on the main, and a "the help" toilet in the basement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sure I’ll regret asking, but I was a little surprised to see all the 4 and 6 plexes in the Arl Now article. I expected duplexes and 3 unit townhomes to dominate.

Anyone have the scoop on these plexes? Are they all 1 bedrooms and mostly going to be rentals? I’m curious.

Why would you expect anything different?

All SFH are now buildable lots.

Maximizing profits (or penalty for the opportunity cost) you use your allotment.

Moreover because this is all custom, high cost, there aren’t many people who can afford a SFH rent or own, so singles it goes to bring down the unit price.

Then consider that the homes prioritized for this development are at the bottom of the market (entry level homes) which raises the barrier to entry and creates pressure on the remaining market.

Everything about this scam works against affordability and homeownership.

+1
Arlingtonians got played.

Nope, their progressiveness just caught up with them and their ballots. They think they want this, they voted for this under the guise of affordable housing and now it's in their own front yards. It's kinda laughable to watch the heads explode.

The majority of our 22207/22213 neighborhoods (most of which are liberal) did not want this.

I disagree. I'm in 22207, and I'd rather have missing middle than the status quo. If we could go back to a time where people weren't allowed to build 3 story houses on basically the entirety of their lots, that's what I want. But we can't go back. Infrastructure is a concern, sure, but as it is, I'm fairly certain that many homeowners skirt the requirement to upgrade pipes if they have a certain number of toilets. I don't know for sure, I'm only surmising based on the absence of dug up front yards when building an addition.

You are an owner?

Can you explain why you’d prefer this? Seems that you’ve had a huge growth in property value over time…and now you’d prefer that someone build a six plex next door, with the accompanying cars, children, and dogs? And all without required off street parking?

I find this hard to believe unless you are just a masochist.

DP, but also a homeowner in 22207. I'm a supporter of MM. All the old houses in my neighborhood were already being torn down and replaced with mcmansions, so having big buildings taking up lots won't be any change. My property values are not going to decline any time soon. And if they do, so be it. I have young adult children who are going to need to live somewhere.

Plus my block already has two older 4-plexes on it. And it's fine. Most of the residents are young people without children or dogs. But I dont care if they do.

Where did you serve in the Peace Corps?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m in 22207 and don’t care about this. All the 1960s homes that go on the market are bought by developers, torn down, and replaced with $2m McMansions that cover the whole lot. Replacing those with townhomes isn’t going to ruin the neighborhood.

The council could have rezoned for five-story apartment buildings, eliminated parking requirements, and forced developers to include subsidized units. I’m grateful they did none of that. This is a fairly moderate solution all things considered.

It is more likely to be a four or six plex on the lot than townhouses. The investors who buy these plexes for rentals or the builders who build them for their own portfolios have to allow Section 8 housing if they own more than four units. A smart developer would buy these 6 plexes and load them with Section 8 tenants. A large part of the rent is always paid by the government and the landlord still turns a profit and is guaranteed a steady stream of renters and an ability to increase their rents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m in 22207 and don’t care about this. All the 1960s homes that go on the market are bought by developers, torn down, and replaced with $2m McMansions that cover the whole lot. Replacing those with townhomes isn’t going to ruin the neighborhood.

The council could have rezoned for five-story apartment buildings, eliminated parking requirements, and forced developers to include subsidized units. I’m grateful they did none of that. This is a fairly moderate solution all things considered.

NP here. I wish the units weren’t inevitably going to end up rentals, but I’m also excited to get something other than ridiculously oversized $2m+ McMansions. Honestly, these giant 6+ bedroom homes are just hideous and I don’t want all my neighbors to be big law partners. Tearing down all the old housing stock and replacing it with homes larger than the average household needs is also just not sustainable nor a good use of limited land.

I would have liked MM to be a bit more tailored (no more than a triplex to avoid ending up with a glut of 1-2 bedroom rentals) and maybe even a limit on renting it for the first decade so that it has to go to an owner occupant. I’d love for there to be more starter homes around me for young families.

The MM townhouses and semi-detached will be starter homes priced at $1.3 M to $1.5 M just like many other townhouses in Arlington. The young families occupying the townhouses in your neighborhood will not be big law partners but the associates who work for big law partners and their clients who are in technology and consultancy.

Good luck taking away an owner's property rights by limiting renting for the first decade so that a unit in a triplex has to go to an owner occupant. Better luck setting up a condo regime in a three unit building. What do you think the condo fees would be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So begins the decline of Arlington. More people will choose McLean or Bethesda once they see how neighborhoods get transformed by this stupidity.

I don’t think this will happen. I think people will continue to want Arlington for their commutes, or being near amenities, etc. Many of us may go private (like our family). But Arlington is still going to be desirable.

For many people, the dream of owning a SFH is about being on a quiet, peaceful street relatively free of density, not one clogged with cars and people. If people want density, they choose a townhouse or condo. Make no mistake, many people's property values will be negatively impacted.

It's like when you're considering buying a house, but the one next door has all the hallmarks of being inhabited by a hoarder (stuff all over the lawn and backyard, poorly cared for) -- you take a pass and wait for something better to come along. No different here.

Yesterday I literally had someone tell me they chose a SFH in Arlington bc it reminded them of a “city.” The home buying demographic is changing. People are valuing different things.

That's why there's a Commonwealth's Attorney who doesn't prosecute criminals so will be just like a "city."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So begins the decline of Arlington. More people will choose McLean or Bethesda once they see how neighborhoods get transformed by this stupidity.

I don’t think this will happen. I think people will continue to want Arlington for their commutes, or being near amenities, etc. Many of us may go private (like our family). But Arlington is still going to be desirable.

For many people, the dream of owning a SFH is about being on a quiet, peaceful street relatively free of density, not one clogged with cars and people. If people want density, they choose a townhouse or condo. Make no mistake, many people's property values will be negatively impacted.

It's like when you're considering buying a house, but the one next door has all the hallmarks of being inhabited by a hoarder (stuff all over the lawn and backyard, poorly cared for) -- you take a pass and wait for something better to come along. No different here.

Yesterday I literally had someone tell me they chose a SFH in Arlington bc it reminded them of a “city.” The home buying demographic is changing. People are valuing different things.

Perhaps they were looking more over in Lyon Village, which does feel like the city as opposed to homes in the Williamsburg, country club Hills, etc. neighborhoods.

DP. I don’t see the incentives for MM housing in those neighborhoods and if you look at the map most of the MM projects are near amenities. I live in a SFH in 22207 because when we outgrew our condo in LV we couldn’t afford a SFH in that neighborhood. I would never rent here or buy a duplex or multi family housing (unless I could purchase the whole building). It’s not walkable. The rents in the R-B corridor are higher than in other parts of the county. So if I were a developer looking to build a rental that’s where it would make sense to focus.

I agree with this. And to put an even finer point on it, the developers will look for land alone the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor that’s the cheapest. Which means not Lyon Village. That neighborhood is the most expensive per square foot in all of Arlington County. If the developers want to build plexes to rent out, they will target places like Virginia Square and Lyon Park where the land prices are lower. Maybe duplexes make sense in LV, but I think the building lots are too expensive for a 4-6 plex of rental units. There are other metro-accessible neighborhoods with cheaper lots.

Two of the MM projects are in Lyon Village. One on Danvilel St.and one on Jackson St.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So begins the decline of Arlington. More people will choose McLean or Bethesda once they see how neighborhoods get transformed by this stupidity.

I don’t think this will happen. I think people will continue to want Arlington for their commutes, or being near amenities, etc. Many of us may go private (like our family). But Arlington is still going to be desirable.

For many people, the dream of owning a SFH is about being on a quiet, peaceful street relatively free of density, not one clogged with cars and people. If people want density, they choose a townhouse or condo. Make no mistake, many people's property values will be negatively impacted.

It's like when you're considering buying a house, but the one next door has all the hallmarks of being inhabited by a hoarder (stuff all over the lawn and backyard, poorly cared for) -- you take a pass and wait for something better to come along. No different here.

Yesterday I literally had someone tell me they chose a SFH in Arlington bc it reminded them of a “city.” The home buying demographic is changing. People are valuing different things.

Perhaps they were looking more over in Lyon Village, which does feel like the city as opposed to homes in the Williamsburg, country club Hills, etc. neighborhoods.

DP. I don’t see the incentives for MM housing in those neighborhoods and if you look at the map most of the MM projects are near amenities. I live in a SFH in 22207 because when we outgrew our condo in LV we couldn’t afford a SFH in that neighborhood. I would never rent here or buy a duplex or multi family housing (unless I could purchase the whole building). It’s not walkable. The rents in the R-B corridor are higher than in other parts of the county. So if I were a developer looking to build a rental that’s where it would make sense to focus.

I agree with this. And to put an even finer point on it, the developers will look for land alone the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor that’s the cheapest. Which means not Lyon Village. That neighborhood is the most expensive per square foot in all of Arlington County. If the developers want to build plexes to rent out, they will target places like Virginia Square and Lyon Park where the land prices are lower. Maybe duplexes make sense in LV, but I think the building lots are too expensive for a 4-6 plex of rental units. There are other metro-accessible neighborhoods with cheaper lots.

Two of the MM projects are in Lyon Village. One on Danvilel St.and one on Jackson St.

No there’s one duplex on N Jackson. Unless Danville just got filed. What’s the Danville address?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So called missing middle is a hypocritical and contradictory admission from urbanists that they don’t actually want density.

If they did, they would stick with a giant high rise, but it turns out they don’t want that. They want SFHs.

They can’t afford that though, so they are demanding in their minds the next best thing, because what they want (despite claims otherwise) is unobtainable.

Then when they’re done destroying your neighborhood, turning it into a slum, they’ll leave because they were never committed to the community in the first place.

Rinse, repeat.

If you want a real answer, they are arguing for a spine along the R-B corridor instead of bullseye development around the metro stops. And Plan Langston Blvd contemplates mid- to high-rises all along the highway. I’m not a “YIMBY” but MM isn’t their only initiative. More high-rises are coming.

Many of the high rises in Plan Langston Blvd are slated for people making 60%of the median income. If you haven't figured it out yet, Arlington progressives want to house as many low income people as possible and have higher income people pay for it. It is wealth re-distribution. One group has a plan to attract low income people to Arlington. The progressive Democrats in Arlington have been unleashed and are doing pretty much what they want.