The DMV needs a YIMBY revolution

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Family of 5 here, with two dogs, in a 1400 sqf single family home. Perfectly happy.

That's 280 sqf per person. OP probably is a single dude living in a 1700 sqf apartment.

That's what these idiots don't get.

I apologize, I don't understand what your point is. Is your point that five people plus two dogs can live perfectly happily in 1,400 square feet of living space? I haven't noticed anybody disagreeing with that point.

Just anecdotally, there are very, very, very few 1,700 square foot apartments.

Apology accepted. Obviously you are ignorant on this. So, for the people in the back, my family lives in a more sustainable fashion than you apartment dwellers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Family of 5 here, with two dogs, in a 1400 sqf single family home. Perfectly happy.

That's 280 sqf per person. OP probably is a single dude living in a 1700 sqf apartment.

That's what these idiots don't get.

I apologize, I don't understand what your point is. Is your point that five people plus two dogs can live perfectly happily in 1,400 square feet of living space? I haven't noticed anybody disagreeing with that point.

Just anecdotally, there are very, very, very few 1,700 square foot apartments.

Apology accepted. Obviously you are ignorant on this. So, for the people in the back, my family lives in a more sustainable fashion than you apartment dwellers.

How'd you get that? There's more to sustainability than square footage per person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't YIMBY people understand that people move to the suburbs because they want to live in the suburbs? Not everyone wants a small apartment and walkability. Some of us want yards and space

This is why you are selfish and what you don’t understand. It’s not only that I personally prefer high-density urban planning and walkability. It’s that if more people lived this way, then we wouldn’t have the suburban garbage like stroads and strip malls and sprawl. If you house 20 families in an acre as opposed to one or two families, then that acreage can turn back into forest land, or green space, and be home to more biodiversity, OR it can be used for local farming, OR solar fields to power the neighborhoods. Land is finite and it better used that way than for empty lawns and gas-guzzling SUVs.

Your second sentence is what people are trying to explain. You prefer high density, which is fine. Many of us don’t. You clearly hate the suburbs. Again you’re entitled to your opinion but many of us prefer them and seek them out. Live downtown in your dense area but not everyone wants that.

Why do I need to live in a way I don’t want to so you can turn my yard into forest or farming just because you like density.

You miss the point. It’s not just that I like density. Me liking density is secondary to me liking biodiversity. Sprawl harms biodiversity and the environment. Your chemical sprayed lawn that Kayden and Jayden play soccer in for ten minutes once a month in between video games could be home to endangered wildlife.

You would win a lot more people over without your ridiculous stereotypes and disdain. Also, NWDC near the park is home to tons of wildlife. But, please carry on…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't YIMBYs be happy living in their crowded apartment buildings in NoMa or Navy Yard, or whatever the new hotspot is, and walking to whatever fancy restaurants and gyms make them happy, and leave the rest of us alone? It always feels like, deep down, they are miserable and want to spread that misery to everyone.

+1000

They're angry at the fact they can't afford to buy and still rent at 38 years old. They resent it tremendously. Therefore they have to ruin what others have and worked hard to obtain simply because of jealousy.

OP should get more education and a better job if they wanted to own a home. Stop trying to tear down what others have because of their own shortcomings.

I'm 48, have owned homes for 20 years, live in a SFH in upper NW that's across the street from an empty plot of land earmarked for future development and am totally fine with making my neighborhood denser even if it means a new big apartment building across the street from me. People on both sides of this endless debate make the mistake of assuming that everyone like them shares all their opinions.

I do think the YIMBYs' faith in the market to provide all solutions to housing problems is misplaced, but I also think the idea that "I live here and I don't want change, therefore, there shouldn't be any" is wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't YIMBYs be happy living in their crowded apartment buildings in NoMa or Navy Yard, or whatever the new hotspot is, and walking to whatever fancy restaurants and gyms make them happy, and leave the rest of us alone? It always feels like, deep down, they are miserable and want to spread that misery to everyone.

+1000

They're angry at the fact they can't afford to buy and still rent at 38 years old. They resent it tremendously. Therefore they have to ruin what others have and worked hard to obtain simply because of jealousy.

OP should get more education and a better job if they wanted to own a home. Stop trying to tear down what others have because of their own shortcomings.

I'm 48, have owned homes for 20 years, live in a SFH in upper NW that's across the street from an empty plot of land earmarked for future development and am totally fine with making my neighborhood denser even if it means a new big apartment building across the street from me. People on both sides of this endless debate make the mistake of assuming that everyone like them shares all their opinions.

I do think the YIMBYs' faith in the market to provide all solutions to housing problems is misplaced, but I also think the idea that "I live here and I don't want change, therefore, there shouldn't be any" is wrong.

The YIMBYs’ faith in the market ends as soon as a developer wants a subsidy or tax break. Then it’s time for a market intervention.

[Anonymous]

After you nationalize and develop all the golf courses inside the beltway, which are a far worse use of land than SFHs, then come talk to me. You could solve all the housing problems in this area in one fell swoop. Make ‘em as dense as you like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will take my kid to a public park to play if you stop letting your dogs run wild and stop smoking pot that we have to smell. I will live in your dense housing if you do both of the above and stop playing music loudly and yelling at each other.

+1. I actually wouldn't mind going back to apartment living, in theory. But unfortunately, people are more obnoxious and inconsiderate than ever, and I need peace and quiet at home. I don't want to hear your music, your loud conversations, your animals barking, and your TV volume cranked up to the max, nor do I want to smell pot all day, nor do I want to hear nonstop stomping because you don't know how to walk softly. This is the sort of stuff that was actually the norm not that long ago.

I actually think there's a huge untapped market for quiet apartment buildings -- well constructed, and with noise decibel monitors and smoke sensors. If any developer was serious about this, I'd consider moving.

An apartment building for civilized/civic minded people? Meaning what a generation ago would have been the norm? I like this.

You both live in a fantasy world of rosy colored nostalgia. Apartment living has never in it's entire history been like that. It's always been a melange of shared sounds, smells, and petty tyrants.

But by all means we should definitely build special buildings where all the sociopathic little emperors can be isolayed together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't YIMBYs be happy living in their crowded apartment buildings in NoMa or Navy Yard, or whatever the new hotspot is, and walking to whatever fancy restaurants and gyms make them happy, and leave the rest of us alone? It always feels like, deep down, they are miserable and want to spread that misery to everyone.

+1000

They're angry at the fact they can't afford to buy and still rent at 38 years old. They resent it tremendously. Therefore they have to ruin what others have and worked hard to obtain simply because of jealousy.

OP should get more education and a better job if they wanted to own a home. Stop trying to tear down what others have because of their own shortcomings.

I'm 48, have owned homes for 20 years, live in a SFH in upper NW that's across the street from an empty plot of land earmarked for future development and am totally fine with making my neighborhood denser even if it means a new big apartment building across the street from me. People on both sides of this endless debate make the mistake of assuming that everyone like them shares all their opinions.

I do think the YIMBYs' faith in the market to provide all solutions to housing problems is misplaced, but I also think the idea that "I live here and I don't want change, therefore, there shouldn't be any" is wrong.

The YIMBYs’ faith in the market ends as soon as a developer wants a subsidy or tax break. Then it’s time for a market intervention.

Or for some, YIYBY ends when it really is their backyard. An ANC commissioner along Connecticut Ave was a loud booster for dense “build, baby build” until some developer proposed to build a building that affected the light and view from her condo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Family of 5 here, with two dogs, in a 1400 sqf single family home. Perfectly happy.

That's 280 sqf per person. OP probably is a single dude living in a 1700 sqf apartment.

That's what these idiots don't get.

I apologize, I don't understand what your point is. Is your point that five people plus two dogs can live perfectly happily in 1,400 square feet of living space? I haven't noticed anybody disagreeing with that point.

Just anecdotally, there are very, very, very few 1,700 square foot apartments.

SFH can absolutely work in a city environment, when a situation like yours is common. However, that's not really common any more. Put single people or DINKS in 4,000+ square feet houses, and the SFH model breaks down really quick. Maybe we should require a family to buy Single Family Homes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Family of 5 here, with two dogs, in a 1400 sqf single family home. Perfectly happy.

That's 280 sqf per person. OP probably is a single dude living in a 1700 sqf apartment.

That's what these idiots don't get.

I apologize, I don't understand what your point is. Is your point that five people plus two dogs can live perfectly happily in 1,400 square feet of living space? I haven't noticed anybody disagreeing with that point.

Just anecdotally, there are very, very, very few 1,700 square foot apartments.

SFH can absolutely work in a city environment, when a situation like yours is common. However, that's not really common any more. Put single people or DINKS in 4,000+ square feet houses, and the SFH model breaks down really quick. Maybe we should require a family to buy Single Family Homes.

And when the children leave, the government can repossess the house.

[Anonymous]

There's plenty of land in this country. And plenty available to build your utopian city model.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will take my kid to a public park to play if you stop letting your dogs run wild and stop smoking pot that we have to smell. I will live in your dense housing if you do both of the above and stop playing music loudly and yelling at each other.

+1. I actually wouldn't mind going back to apartment living, in theory. But unfortunately, people are more obnoxious and inconsiderate than ever, and I need peace and quiet at home. I don't want to hear your music, your loud conversations, your animals barking, and your TV volume cranked up to the max, nor do I want to smell pot all day, nor do I want to hear nonstop stomping because you don't know how to walk softly. This is the sort of stuff that was actually the norm not that long ago.

I actually think there's a huge untapped market for quiet apartment buildings -- well constructed, and with noise decibel monitors and smoke sensors. If any developer was serious about this, I'd consider moving.

An apartment building for civilized/civic minded people? Meaning what a generation ago would have been the norm? I like this.

You both live in a fantasy world of rosy colored nostalgia. Apartment living has never in it's entire history been like that. It's always been a melange of shared sounds, smells, and petty tyrants.

But by all means we should definitely build special buildings where all the sociopathic little emperors can be isolayed together.

You described them perfectly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Family of 5 here, with two dogs, in a 1400 sqf single family home. Perfectly happy.

That's 280 sqf per person. OP probably is a single dude living in a 1700 sqf apartment.

That's what these idiots don't get.

I apologize, I don't understand what your point is. Is your point that five people plus two dogs can live perfectly happily in 1,400 square feet of living space? I haven't noticed anybody disagreeing with that point.

Just anecdotally, there are very, very, very few 1,700 square foot apartments.

SFH can absolutely work in a city environment, when a situation like yours is common. However, that's not really common any more. Put single people or DINKS in 4,000+ square feet houses, and the SFH model breaks down really quick. Maybe we should require a family to buy Single Family Homes.

No SFHs for childless cat ladies! We knew there is a very Trumpy connection with DC Smart Growth but it seems now that the Density Bros are even channeling J.D. Vance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't YIMBYs be happy living in their crowded apartment buildings in NoMa or Navy Yard, or whatever the new hotspot is, and walking to whatever fancy restaurants and gyms make them happy, and leave the rest of us alone? It always feels like, deep down, they are miserable and want to spread that misery to everyone.

+1000

They're angry at the fact they can't afford to buy and still rent at 38 years old. They resent it tremendously. Therefore they have to ruin what others have and worked hard to obtain simply because of jealousy.

OP should get more education and a better job if they wanted to own a home. Stop trying to tear down what others have because of their own shortcomings.

I'm 48, have owned homes for 20 years, live in a SFH in upper NW that's across the street from an empty plot of land earmarked for future development and am totally fine with making my neighborhood denser even if it means a new big apartment building across the street from me. People on both sides of this endless debate make the mistake of assuming that everyone like them shares all their opinions.

I do think the YIMBYs' faith in the market to provide all solutions to housing problems is misplaced, but I also think the idea that "I live here and I don't want change, therefore, there shouldn't be any" is wrong.

It’s not about reluctance to change, it’s about general upzoning being stupid. By all means, make adjustments to zoning, build more of what you need. Maybe first calculate what you need and where and work from that starting point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't YIMBYs be happy living in their crowded apartment buildings in NoMa or Navy Yard, or whatever the new hotspot is, and walking to whatever fancy restaurants and gyms make them happy, and leave the rest of us alone? It always feels like, deep down, they are miserable and want to spread that misery to everyone.

+1000

They're angry at the fact they can't afford to buy and still rent at 38 years old. They resent it tremendously. Therefore they have to ruin what others have and worked hard to obtain simply because of jealousy.

OP should get more education and a better job if they wanted to own a home. Stop trying to tear down what others have because of their own shortcomings.

I'm 48, have owned homes for 20 years, live in a SFH in upper NW that's across the street from an empty plot of land earmarked for future development and am totally fine with making my neighborhood denser even if it means a new big apartment building across the street from me. People on both sides of this endless debate make the mistake of assuming that everyone like them shares all their opinions.

I do think the YIMBYs' faith in the market to provide all solutions to housing problems is misplaced, but I also think the idea that "I live here and I don't want change, therefore, there shouldn't be any" is wrong.

It’s not about reluctance to change, it’s about general upzoning being stupid. By all means, make adjustments to zoning, build more of what you need. Maybe first calculate what you need and where and work from that starting point?

Why? Why isn't it general "only so-called 'single-family houses' are allowed here, nothing else" zoning that's stupid?