Reply to Missing middle- Arlington

Forum Index » Real Estate

Reply to "Missing middle- Arlington "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]So begins the decline of Arlington. More people will choose McLean or Bethesda once they see how neighborhoods get transformed by this stupidity. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

Umm, OK. If someone wants a "city," there are SFHs in the "city" of DC. Arlington is a suburb. [/quote]

The densest census district in the entire DMV isn’t even in DC.  It’s Ballston.  Like it or not, Arlington isn’t a suburb anymore.[/quote]

Just because someone lives in a "city," that doesn't mean that want multiplexes next door to them. Can you imagine if this was proposed for AU Park, for example?

Like it or not, this will not help property values unless you have a teardown. If you have a $1.5 million house in North Arlington, this is bad for you -- your house is too expensive to be a teardown but if a multiplex gets build next door, your property value will decrease. Pretty telling how a PP was in favor of it but admitted to having a teardown -- those are the folks who will benefit.[/quote]

I definitely hear your concern, but I still think there were decent policy reasons to make the change.  And not many people were nuanced in their opposition-  they want all-in asking for no change, ever.

I still think SFHs are a scarce resource in Arlington and they will get scarcer if other housing types are allowed. I just don’t see anyone losing money.[/quote]

There was no good policy reason for 6 and 4-plexes of 1-2 bedroom rentals. Arlington has no shortage of 1-2 bedroom apartments. I'd have been in favor of MM if it had been limited to townhomes with off-street parking, max 3-units per site. That is the "missing" housing type that would actually be a bridge between the abundant 1-2 bedroom apartments and huge new-build SFHs that would otherwise be built on tear-down lots. Also, Arlington has shown little interest in enforcing set back requirements, reasonable heights and tree preservation when new SFHs are built so the assertion that these new units have to conform to the same requirements as a SFH on the same lot is not at all reassuring.  [/quote]

I’m kind of agnostic but I don’t think your position is unreasonable.  Was anyone arguing for that though?  I feel like the organized contingent was against any changes and TBH they came off as kind of crazy.  [b]It’s too bad nobody can ever organize around a middle ground[/b].[/quote]

Yeah, basic problem with all politics these days. I heard plenty of discussion among my circle of friends that 2-3 units per site + parking would be reasonable but that wasn't what people were yelling about. I think both sides sounded crazy (nothing but huge SFHs forever) or dishonest/idiotic as the pro-MM side spun it dishonestly as providing housing for the middle class (but not the 2-bedroom rentals they can already buy) when it was clear it would be either more small apartments or $1m+ townhomes.[/quote]

I was in favor of fee simple duplexes with parking, like the ones around the county already. They would have served a real purpose in bringing more affordable housing types to almost every neighborhood. Instead we got a developer boondoggle. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics