We need to build more: gentrification caused by blocking housing construction (not the opposite!)

post reply Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

◄ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ► Go

Go to page...

01/05/2021 14:59

Subject: We need to build more: gentrification caused by blocking housing construction (not the opposite!)

quote

Anonymous

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There isn’t a great gov’t example of completely fixing the problem.

But HUD and subsidized affordable housing DOES improve the situation.

But our housing shortage is so severe we need to try everything: build, rollback zoning, Section 8 subsidized housing, affordable rules, LIHTC subsidized housing.

We need to do everything. DC should be trying it all.

Do we have a housing shortage in America, or a shortage of very cheap housing in expensive neighborhoods? Just want to be clear

You need to look at what makes a neighborhood expensive. In the DC area, its: quality public schools, proximity to metro, walkability, quality of housing stock, proximity to amenities (grocery stores and other convenient retail). Interestingly, crime and safety are not as correlative as you might think. Many of the most expensive neighborhoods in DC proper have a lot of crime (Shaw and Navy Yard being the two that come to mind fastest).

So you miss the point if you interpret this as just people wanting cheap housing in expensive neighborhoods. What's actually happening is that people want access to shared amenities, including taxpayer funded ones like schools, public transportation, and walk-friendly streetscaping. And even the ones that aren't public funded (decent houses, nearby grocery stores) are pretty basic needs.

So yes, there should be cheaper housing in our "expensive" neighborhoods, because you shouldn't have to be wealthy to gain access to some of this stuff. That's why people push for greater housing density, so that these amenities are genuinely shared among different socioeconomic classes.

And this applies in the city and in the suburbs. It's just easier to accomplish in the city where people don't fight density quite as much (they still fight it, but it's harder to argue against). But even in suburbs, we should have more socioeconomically diverse neighborhoods clustered around public goods and amenities. It would be more efficient AND more just.

Is it impossible to build this stuff in the communities that deserve it and want it?

Why can't Anacostia have these things? Seems easier than building a lot of "cheap" housing in other areas and then asking those people to move from their homes.

You have to do both, actually. Otherwise, what happens is that the capital investment in neighborhoods like Anacostia leads to an influx of, first, young professionals, and then wealthier people. The people who currently live there start getting priced out, the nature of the neighborhood changes, and then the COL goes way up. And while, yes, you now have another nice neighborhood for wealthy people to live in, you still have nowhere for middle and working class families to live.

So you have to intentionally build and invest in affordable housing. You need somewhere for people who make under 100k a year to live, and you need this places to not be segregated because that leads to slumlords and concentrations of crime.

Sorry, but you can't get around it. If you sort people by socioeconomic status, you will inevitably wind up with resource hoarding among the wealthiest residents. You can't go build some working class utopia in a segregated part of town, because the minute it looks appealing at all, the wealthy will come in and take it.

It's called transitional neighborhoods and planning them smartly--with mixed income housing, tenant buyouts of redeveloped apartment buildings, tax breaks for teachers and police, homestead act. DC has plenty, and Anacostia could be one more. There is no way to stop people from selling their homes if the price rises--that's a choice, but you can certainly have rent control units and ways to make it affordable to stay (homestead act again).

sure, but don't be shocked when developers don't want to be saddled with rent control and choose to either build luxury or not at all and don't be surprised when building owners have no incentive to make improvements because there's no point with rent control

I'm not surprised, just like I'm not surprised that GGW is funded by developers and purely profit driven. The best bet for this city is gradual gentrification with set-asides and protections and programs for existing residents (not new ones), and there is plenty of space left to do it in.