Anonymous
Post 08/13/2021 12:57     Subject: The Urbanist Cult
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I grew up in dc - in a row house. That house now has three condos in it. I’m sure each one sold for close to or more than a $1 million. So two things.

1. There are thousands of homes and in many neighborhoods that can be subdivided.

2. Allowing people to subdivide lots is not going to lead to affordable housing.




Last time I checked, $1mil condo is cheaper than a $3mil rowhouse. Check my math?



Your math is correct. I can't afford either one, so for me, it doesn't matter.

Maybe we should be working towards having fewer people and not towards cramming people together. It's bad for our health.


It's even more expensive in San Francisco, because they didn't allow the extra development being proposed here.
You say you can't afford either so you are not affected. Well, someone who could afford the $1 mil condo, but can't because it was not made available, do you want this person coming in and buying what you can afford?
Anonymous
Post 08/13/2021 12:13     Subject: The Urbanist Cult
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I grew up in dc - in a row house. That house now has three condos in it. I’m sure each one sold for close to or more than a $1 million. So two things.

1. There are thousands of homes and in many neighborhoods that can be subdivided.

2. Allowing people to subdivide lots is not going to lead to affordable housing.




Last time I checked, $1mil condo is cheaper than a $3mil rowhouse. Check my math?



Your math is correct. I can't afford either one, so for me, it doesn't matter.

Maybe we should be working towards having fewer people and not towards cramming people together. It's bad for our health.
Anonymous
Post 08/13/2021 12:10     Subject: The Urbanist Cult
Anonymous wrote:

I was thinking the same thing about you. Nobody will explain the economics that justifies getting rid of current zoning rules. It’s got to be something a little more detailed with a few hypothetical examples. You are asking for a major shift in policy. What will it accomplish in a market in DC where an empty lot costs $1 million’ ?. It’s got to be a little more than ‘I want to live in ward three and I can’t afford to.’


Plenty of people have explained it. You just don't accept the explanation.

The economics is as simple as: Where duplexes are allowed, there can be two housing units on a given parcel instead of just one. Which actually isn't even economics, it's just math.
Anonymous
Post 08/13/2021 11:34     Subject: The Urbanist Cult
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I grew up in dc - in a row house. That house now has three condos in it. I’m sure each one sold for close to or more than a $1 million. So two things.

1. There are thousands of homes and in many neighborhoods that can be subdivided.

2. Allowing people to subdivide lots is not going to lead to affordable housing.



And what do you think it does to the supply of affordable housing to make it *illegal* to subdivide lots?


It's not immediately clear to me why people immediately leap to affordable housing, as though, if it doesn't lead to housing affordable by people with 80% AMI, it shouldn't be done at all. The area needs more affordable housing, yes, but it also needs just plain more housing (unaffordable housing?).


After 10 pages of this thread, it's abundantly clear. It's because the people opposed to zoning reform are not arguing in good faith.



I was thinking the same thing about you. Nobody will explain the economics that justifies getting rid of current zoning rules. It’s got to be something a little more detailed with a few hypothetical examples. You are asking for a major shift in policy. What will it accomplish in a market in DC where an empty lot costs $1 million’ ?.


Increasing density and decreasing land use restrictions has been shown time and again to either lower housing costs or slow the pace of housing cost increases. There's plenty of academic literature on the subject if you are unsatisfied by hypotheticals. Here are some good papers to get you started:

https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/epr/03v09n2/0306glae.pdf
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.3982/ECTA9823
https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/jep.32.1.3
https://www.fanniemae.com/media/35821/display
https://faculty.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Regulation-and-Housing-Supply-1.pdf
https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/mac.20170388
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3867764
https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3345

Anonymous wrote:It’s got to be a little more than ‘I want to live in ward three and I can’t afford to.’


When has anyone said this? Be honest.
Anonymous
Post 08/13/2021 11:20     Subject: The Urbanist Cult
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I grew up in dc - in a row house. That house now has three condos in it. I’m sure each one sold for close to or more than a $1 million. So two things.

1. There are thousands of homes and in many neighborhoods that can be subdivided.

2. Allowing people to subdivide lots is not going to lead to affordable housing.



And what do you think it does to the supply of affordable housing to make it *illegal* to subdivide lots?


It's not immediately clear to me why people immediately leap to affordable housing, as though, if it doesn't lead to housing affordable by people with 80% AMI, it shouldn't be done at all. The area needs more affordable housing, yes, but it also needs just plain more housing (unaffordable housing?).


After 10 pages of this thread, it's abundantly clear. It's because the people opposed to zoning reform are not arguing in good faith.



I was thinking the same thing about you. Nobody will explain the economics that justifies getting rid of current zoning rules. It’s got to be something a little more detailed with a few hypothetical examples. You are asking for a major shift in policy. What will it accomplish in a market in DC where an empty lot costs $1 million’ ?. It’s got to be a little more than ‘I want to live in ward three and I can’t afford to.’
Anonymous
Post 08/13/2021 10:55     Subject: The Urbanist Cult
Anonymous wrote:I grew up in dc - in a row house. That house now has three condos in it. I’m sure each one sold for close to or more than a $1 million. So two things.

1. There are thousands of homes and in many neighborhoods that can be subdivided.

2. Allowing people to subdivide lots is not going to lead to affordable housing.




Last time I checked, $1mil condo is cheaper than a $3mil rowhouse. Check my math?
Anonymous
Post 08/13/2021 10:51     Subject: The Urbanist Cult
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I grew up in dc - in a row house. That house now has three condos in it. I’m sure each one sold for close to or more than a $1 million. So two things.

1. There are thousands of homes and in many neighborhoods that can be subdivided.

2. Allowing people to subdivide lots is not going to lead to affordable housing.



And what do you think it does to the supply of affordable housing to make it *illegal* to subdivide lots?


It's not immediately clear to me why people immediately leap to affordable housing, as though, if it doesn't lead to housing affordable by people with 80% AMI, it shouldn't be done at all. The area needs more affordable housing, yes, but it also needs just plain more housing (unaffordable housing?).


After 10 pages of this thread, it's abundantly clear. It's because the people opposed to zoning reform are not arguing in good faith.
Anonymous
Post 08/13/2021 10:19     Subject: The Urbanist Cult
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I grew up in dc - in a row house. That house now has three condos in it. I’m sure each one sold for close to or more than a $1 million. So two things.

1. There are thousands of homes and in many neighborhoods that can be subdivided.

2. Allowing people to subdivide lots is not going to lead to affordable housing.



And what do you think it does to the supply of affordable housing to make it *illegal* to subdivide lots?


It's not immediately clear to me why people immediately leap to affordable housing, as though, if it doesn't lead to housing affordable by people with 80% AMI, it shouldn't be done at all. The area needs more affordable housing, yes, but it also needs just plain more housing (unaffordable housing?).
Anonymous
Post 08/13/2021 10:12     Subject: The Urbanist Cult
Anonymous wrote:I grew up in dc - in a row house. That house now has three condos in it. I’m sure each one sold for close to or more than a $1 million. So two things.

1. There are thousands of homes and in many neighborhoods that can be subdivided.

2. Allowing people to subdivide lots is not going to lead to affordable housing.




And what do you think it does to the supply of affordable housing to make it *illegal* to subdivide lots?
Anonymous
Post 08/13/2021 10:05     Subject: The Urbanist Cult
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

There need to be penalties for underutilization to make underutilizing expensive. We need regulation to change the economics, because the economics favor underutilization. Urbanists oppose regulation.


What? No. First of all, notwithstanding the OP, urbanists do not belong to a cult. Many different urbanists have many different opinions about many different things. Second of all, like everybody else, people who are urbanists support regulation of some things and oppose regulation of other things.


So do you agree that a developer deciding to build a SFH in a multifamily zone is every bit as harmful to affordable housing as zoning only allowing a SFH? If so, what do you propose doing about it? What about building less than the authorized number of units in areas zoned for high rise? Or perpetually delaying projects to avoid "stressing the market?" All of those actions are private decisions with public consequences. The predominant line of thinking among urbanists seems to be that we need to subsidize market rate construction. That's a terrible use of public funds.

DC has approved more than enough units to address need, so I'm challenged to understand why all of the ire is directed at laws and NIMBYs but none is directed at people who are permitted to build more but are not because they want bigger margins.


Are there many cases in DC where people are building detached one-unit houses on properties zoned for multiple-unit housing? Are there ANY?
Anonymous
Post 08/13/2021 08:41     Subject: The Urbanist Cult
Anonymous wrote:DC population grew by over 7% over the last decade.
DC housing units grew by around 6% over the last decade.

This growth trajectory leaves a scarcity that drives housing costs.

Pretty basic concept that the anti-urbanists don't want to acknowledge.




You must be reading different posts than I am.

They acknowledge it all right, they just don't care. Their mentality is "screw you, I got my SFH" and they are completely unashamed of it. The entitlement is off the charts. They're not happy with just being able to own their own SFH, they want to be able to tell all their neighbors what they can and can't do with their SFHs to make sure that the entire area looks like their personal picture of a suburban cul-de-sac. God forbid people actually be able to do what they want to do with their own property, oh no - clearly because they're the most important people in the world, their vision for their neighborhood is the only correct vision and it cannot change EVER no matter what happens in the decades and decades they plan to maintain an iron fist on zoning.
Anonymous
Post 08/12/2021 22:52     Subject: The Urbanist Cult
Anonymous wrote:DC population grew by over 7% over the last decade.
DC housing units grew by around 6% over the last decade.

This growth trajectory leaves a scarcity that drives housing costs.

Pretty basic concept that the anti-urbanists don't want to acknowledge.




The growth trajectory had flattened out even before the pandemic and screeched to a halt during it. Nearly all of the population growth came from the first half of the decade.

https://www.dcpolicycenter.org/publications/districts-population-grows-14th-year-row-weaker-rate/
Anonymous
Post 08/12/2021 22:33     Subject: The Urbanist Cult
I grew up in dc - in a row house. That house now has three condos in it. I’m sure each one sold for close to or more than a $1 million. So two things.

1. There are thousands of homes and in many neighborhoods that can be subdivided.

2. Allowing people to subdivide lots is not going to lead to affordable housing.


Anonymous
Post 08/12/2021 22:11     Subject: The Urbanist Cult
DC population grew by over 7% over the last decade.
DC housing units grew by around 6% over the last decade.

This growth trajectory leaves a scarcity that drives housing costs.

Pretty basic concept that the anti-urbanists don't want to acknowledge.


Anonymous
Post 08/12/2021 22:11     Subject: The Urbanist Cult
Anonymous wrote:As long as the elites can bail on your city or county when they don't like the results of policies they support today. Sure, go for it.

First MoCo went to HoCo, Fredneck, and Fairfax County.

Then Fairfax County moves to Loudoun County.

Then, NOVA folks were moving to Fredericksburg.

Then Richmond.

Now, moving to NC.

Next it will be GA, SC. . .

Just move, destroy, move, destroy


Or just buy into an elite enclave where the wonderful policies you support can't possibly have any effect. And the berate the poors who have to deal with all the consequences of your actions in their own neighborhoods.