Anonymous wrote:Increasing density is the same thing as gentrification.

If you replace single family homes with condos, what happens? You have more people living in the same place. What happens then? Bars and restaurants and stores move in, because they want to be in places with lots of foot traffic. What happens then? The price of those condos starts to spiral upwards because everyone wants to live within walking distance of bars and restaurants. People build more condos, which leads to more bars and restaurants, which makes more people want to live there, which sends the price of condos to the moon. Pretty soon, you've created U Street, where a 600-foot condo costs more than the three-bedroom house that used to stand there.

There's lots to recommend in this scenario. It's great for the tax base, and who doesnt like new bars and restaurants? But don't pretend you're creating affordable housing when you're really doing the opposite. You create a lot of high-priced condos and you pushed out a lot of poor people to make room for them.

news flash - there aren't an infinite number of people who want to live near bars and restaurants. To the extent there ARE a lot of them, building new areas with bars and restaurants will divert demand from other areas with such (as well as from areas that don't have them)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW is very much a pro-developer website. They push anything that supports greater urbanization and density, which aligns nicely with the real estate industry's goals.

Being YIMBY is not being pro-developer. But yeah, "developer" is not a dirty word if you're interested in increasing affordable housing and livable cities.

Developers don't care about affordable housing.

Well limiting the supply of housing surely isn't going to make it more affordable, or make cities more livable. (Unless your goal is to keep your neighborhood from changing at all, in which case, you're not really pro affordable housing either, most likely.)

Have you been to New York City? They've packed as many people in as humanly possible, and it is neither affordable nor livable.

I find NYC very livable. And limiting housing construction would not increase affordability, obviously. (PS: nobody every said that increasing density is all that's needed, but the converse -- being paranoidly anti-developer -- is only going to hurt, not help.)

You obviously don't have kids.

I have relatives raising kids in Brooklyn. Not sure how you can argue against 2 subway stops within 5 minutes, grocery store down the block, public school on the same block, Prospect Park 10 minutes away, Brooklyn library, etc etc etc ...

Ha. Famous last words. Just try it. I love NYC but the idea of raising kids in a little apartment sounds like torture. That's why everyone leaves the city when they have kids -- because they need more space, and no one except the very rich can afford to buy a house there.

You need to get out of your bubble. Lots of people have kids in NYC and gasp! Even in DC in apartments. People like you are the worst.

You need to get out of your little fantasy world. Look at the stats. There are waaaaay fewer children in NYC, especially Manhattan and Brooklyn, than other major cities, not to mention non-major cities. Why do you think that happens? Do you think all these people who moved to NYC in their twenties all just, by coincidence, happen to leave when they have kids?

Care to cite those statistics? The last census data shows 6.5% of the New York City population is under 5 (roughly in line with the 6.1% in the US as a whole) and 21% are under 18. This is lower than the country as a whole (22.4%), but higher than DC proper (18.1%), in line with Chicago (21.5%), higher than Boston (16.3%), etc. It seems like NYC mostly reflects the country as a whole and for a larger city has, if anything, a higher than expected number of kids.

Look, this isn't something I'm just making up. There's been lots written about this. For example: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/where-have-all-the-children-gone/594133/

To quote:

"New York is the poster child of this urban renaissance. But as the city has attracted more wealth, housing prices have soared alongside the skyscrapers, and young families have found staying put with school-age children more difficult. Since 2011, the number of babies born in New York has declined 9 percent in the five boroughs and 15 percent in Manhattan. (At this rate, Manhattan’s infant population will halve in 30 years.) In that same period, the net number of New York residents leaving the city has more than doubled. There are many reasons New York might be shrinking, but most of them come down to the same unavoidable fact: Raising a family in the city is just too hard. And the same could be said of pretty much every other dense and expensive urban area in the country."

Also, you're being a little disingenuous when you 1. argue for more density and then 2. rely on numbers that are puffed up by areas of NYC that aren't densely populated. Look at Manhattan. 14 percent of the population is under the age of 18. That's almost half the national average. Those numbers get pushed back up when you start including figures from Queens, Staten Island, etc.

GGWash is a blog that advocates for a broad smart growth agenda, including denser transit oriented market rate house, committed affordable housing, public transit, and bike/pedestrian issues. It sometimes dives into other issues but IMO with less depth of expertise. It is a very good central place for discussions on this from a pro-smart growth POV, and has considerably influenced discussions around the region (though they tend to cover DC somewhat more intensely than the suburbs, and seldom cover the outer suburbs).

Their funding for a while was largely from a foundation. They get support from ordinary people (they do a fund drive) I suppose they get some money from those developers interested in urbanist projects, but I think there are a lot of assumptions about their funding that may not be true.

Some of the commenters over the years have been people very opposed to one or another part of the "GGWash agenda" They are very tolerant of those opposing voices.

Anonymous wrote:GGW is very much a pro-developer website. They push anything that supports greater urbanization and density, which aligns nicely with the real estate industry's goals.

Developers build sprawl too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW is very much a pro-developer website. They push anything that supports greater urbanization and density, which aligns nicely with the real estate industry's goals.

Being YIMBY is not being pro-developer. But yeah, "developer" is not a dirty word if you're interested in increasing affordable housing and livable cities.

Developers don't care about affordable housing.

Well limiting the supply of housing surely isn't going to make it more affordable, or make cities more livable. (Unless your goal is to keep your neighborhood from changing at all, in which case, you're not really pro affordable housing either, most likely.)

Have you been to New York City? They've packed as many people in as humanly possible, and it is neither affordable nor livable.

I find NYC very livable. And limiting housing construction would not increase affordability, obviously. (PS: nobody every said that increasing density is all that's needed, but the converse -- being paranoidly anti-developer -- is only going to hurt, not help.)

You obviously don't have kids.

I have relatives raising kids in Brooklyn. Not sure how you can argue against 2 subway stops within 5 minutes, grocery store down the block, public school on the same block, Prospect Park 10 minutes away, Brooklyn library, etc etc etc ...

Ha. Famous last words. Just try it. I love NYC but the idea of raising kids in a little apartment sounds like torture. That's why everyone leaves the city when they have kids -- because they need more space, and no one except the very rich can afford to buy a house there.

You need to get out of your bubble. Lots of people have kids in NYC and gasp! Even in DC in apartments. People like you are the worst.

You need to get out of your little fantasy world. Look at the stats. There are waaaaay fewer children in NYC, especially Manhattan and Brooklyn, than other major cities, not to mention non-major cities. Why do you think that happens? Do you think all these people who moved to NYC in their twenties all just, by coincidence, happen to leave when they have kids?

Care to cite those statistics? The last census data shows 6.5% of the New York City population is under 5 (roughly in line with the 6.1% in the US as a whole) and 21% are under 18. This is lower than the country as a whole (22.4%), but higher than DC proper (18.1%), in line with Chicago (21.5%), higher than Boston (16.3%), etc. It seems like NYC mostly reflects the country as a whole and for a larger city has, if anything, a higher than expected number of kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Increasing density is the same thing as gentrification.

If you replace single family homes with condos, what happens? You have more people living in the same place. What happens then? Bars and restaurants and stores move in, because they want to be in places with lots of foot traffic. What happens then? The price of those condos starts to spiral upwards because everyone wants to live within walking distance of bars and restaurants. People build more condos, which leads to more bars and restaurants, which makes more people want to live there, which sends the price of condos to the moon. Pretty soon, you've created U Street, where a 600-foot condo costs more than the three-bedroom house that used to stand there.

There's lots to recommend in this scenario. It's great for the tax base, and who doesnt like new bars and restaurants? But don't pretend you're creating affordable housing when you're really doing the opposite. You create a lot of high-priced condos and you pushed out a lot of poor people to make room for them.

But wait! Who is moving into those condos? People from the suburbs of course. That then opens up spots in their old places in the suburbs, which is great if you want to live in Manassas, although I thought the point of increasing density in the city is to create affordable housing in the city, and not in some far-off suburb.

The point of increasing density in the city is to provide more housing in the city for people.

Greater Greater Washington is a blog that is primarily funded by the development industry. Its views are in line with urbanism, or the concept that the urban-centric way of life - with dense apartments, public transit, and walking-distance access to places to work and play - is best for future growth in terms of livability, cost, and the environment. Many of its contributors have ties to the real estate industry, though some do not, and they include architects, urban planners, realtors, and general housing and transit advocates. Their political leanings trend progressive but include some libertarian views as well, especially among those who put more emphasis on the private market assuaging the housing crisis by increasing the supply with tools such as deregulated zoning.

Criticism of urbanism and its advocates exists on the right, left, and center. Right-wing criticism tends to fall into the Not-In-My-Backyard (NIMBY) category, which seeks to protect one's own property values or the character of one's neighborhood from change, which could mean a younger and/or less white community. Left-wing criticism tends to evoke skepticism that private developers have the community's best interest in mind, that high density development will displace existing residents who might be less affluent (gentrification) or that the affordable housing set-asides are inadequate. They may advocate for other affordable housing strategies such as public housing or rent control, though many on the left support these strategies as a supplement to up zoning. Other criticism, which could be from the "center," casts doubts on the pragmatism of urbanists and their advocates, citing issues like the tax incentives given to developers for high density projects rendering them unsustainable or incapable of funding schools and infrastructure necessary to accompany a booming population, as evidence that the urbanist model may not be realistic.

That's the least biased take I can offer.

Anonymous wrote:Increasing density is the same thing as gentrification.

If you replace single family homes with condos, what happens? You have more people living in the same place. What happens then? Bars and restaurants and stores move in, because they want to be in places with lots of foot traffic. What happens then? The price of those condos starts to spiral upwards because everyone wants to live within walking distance of bars and restaurants. People build more condos, which leads to more bars and restaurants, which makes more people want to live there, which sends the price of condos to the moon. Pretty soon, you've created U Street, where a 600-foot condo costs more than the three-bedroom house that used to stand there.

There's lots to recommend in this scenario. It's great for the tax base, and who doesnt like new bars and restaurants? But don't pretend you're creating affordable housing when you're really doing the opposite. You create a lot of high-priced condos and you pushed out a lot of poor people to make room for them.

But wait! Who is moving into those condos? People from the suburbs of course. That then opens up spots in their old places in the suburbs, which is great if you want to live in Manassas, although I thought the point of increasing density in the city is to create affordable housing in the city, and not in some far-off suburb.

Anonymous wrote:What do people make of Greater Greater Washington? Is it a blog or is it a local news source? I used to think it was a good source of updates on local events and such but it politically leans pretty far left. I suppose most publications around here would be.

I know the Elrich people hate it and call it fake news. I am no fan of Elrich, but I'm not sure if the enemy of my enemy is my friend here. I'm not sure if it's meant to be local buzz a la Washingtonian Magazine or if it's a politically motivated blog.

It is a blog that is also a local news source.

Elrich supporters do not call it "fake news," because that is a Trump thing.

Increasing density is the same thing as gentrification.

If you replace single family homes with condos, what happens? You have more people living in the same place. What happens then? Bars and restaurants and stores move in, because they want to be in places with lots of foot traffic. What happens then? The price of those condos starts to spiral upwards because everyone wants to live within walking distance of bars and restaurants. People build more condos, which leads to more bars and restaurants, which makes more people want to live there, which sends the price of condos to the moon. Pretty soon, you've created U Street, where a 600-foot condo costs more than the three-bedroom house that used to stand there.

There's lots to recommend in this scenario. It's great for the tax base, and who doesnt like new bars and restaurants? But don't pretend you're creating affordable housing when you're really doing the opposite. You create a lot of high-priced condos and you pushed out a lot of poor people to make room for them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW is very much a pro-developer website. They push anything that supports greater urbanization and density, which aligns nicely with the real estate industry's goals.

Being YIMBY is not being pro-developer. But yeah, "developer" is not a dirty word if you're interested in increasing affordable housing and livable cities.

Developers don't care about affordable housing.

Well limiting the supply of housing surely isn't going to make it more affordable, or make cities more livable. (Unless your goal is to keep your neighborhood from changing at all, in which case, you're not really pro affordable housing either, most likely.)

Have you been to New York City? They've packed as many people in as humanly possible, and it is neither affordable nor livable.

I find NYC very livable. And limiting housing construction would not increase affordability, obviously. (PS: nobody every said that increasing density is all that's needed, but the converse -- being paranoidly anti-developer -- is only going to hurt, not help.)

You obviously don't have kids.

I have relatives raising kids in Brooklyn. Not sure how you can argue against 2 subway stops within 5 minutes, grocery store down the block, public school on the same block, Prospect Park 10 minutes away, Brooklyn library, etc etc etc ...

Ha. Famous last words. Just try it. I love NYC but the idea of raising kids in a little apartment sounds like torture. That's why everyone leaves the city when they have kids -- because they need more space, and no one except the very rich can afford to buy a house there.

You need to get out of your bubble. Lots of people have kids in NYC and gasp! Even in DC in apartments. People like you are the worst.

You need to get out of your little fantasy world. Look at the stats. There are waaaaay fewer children in NYC, especially Manhattan and Brooklyn, than other major cities, not to mention non-major cities. Why do you think that happens? Do you think all these people who moved to NYC in their twenties all just, by coincidence, happen to leave when they have kids?

100% pro developer. They want to build more homes/dwelling units for more people. How about building schools for some of those people? Nothing. Or recreation centers or parks/green space (an urban pocket park doesn't count) or even police or fire stations. Nope, jothering. Just housing. Because that is how the developers who fund the site make a living.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW is very much a pro-developer website. They push anything that supports greater urbanization and density, which aligns nicely with the real estate industry's goals.

Being YIMBY is not being pro-developer. But yeah, "developer" is not a dirty word if you're interested in increasing affordable housing and livable cities.

Developers don't care about affordable housing.

Well limiting the supply of housing surely isn't going to make it more affordable, or make cities more livable. (Unless your goal is to keep your neighborhood from changing at all, in which case, you're not really pro affordable housing either, most likely.)

Have you been to New York City? They've packed as many people in as humanly possible, and it is neither affordable nor livable.

I find NYC very livable. And limiting housing construction would not increase affordability, obviously. (PS: nobody every said that increasing density is all that's needed, but the converse -- being paranoidly anti-developer -- is only going to hurt, not help.)

You obviously don't have kids.

I have relatives raising kids in Brooklyn. Not sure how you can argue against 2 subway stops within 5 minutes, grocery store down the block, public school on the same block, Prospect Park 10 minutes away, Brooklyn library, etc etc etc ...

Ha. Famous last words. Just try it. I love NYC but the idea of raising kids in a little apartment sounds like torture. That's why everyone leaves the city when they have kids -- because they need more space, and no one except the very rich can afford to buy a house there.

You need to get out of your bubble. Lots of people have kids in NYC and gasp! Even in DC in apartments. People like you are the worst.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay this has devolved into a debate over development.

The topic at hand is "Is Greater Greater Washington a news source"

That's easy. No. It's a blog written from a pro-developer perspective. Read the Post or a real news source.

Almost every single post up there now is about transit. Not sure how that's "pro-developer."

Yes I don’t find it “pro-developer” at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GGW is very much a pro-developer website. They push anything that supports greater urbanization and density, which aligns nicely with the real estate industry's goals.

Being YIMBY is not being pro-developer. But yeah, "developer" is not a dirty word if you're interested in increasing affordable housing and livable cities.

Developers don't care about affordable housing.

Well limiting the supply of housing surely isn't going to make it more affordable, or make cities more livable. (Unless your goal is to keep your neighborhood from changing at all, in which case, you're not really pro affordable housing either, most likely.)

Have you been to New York City? They've packed as many people in as humanly possible, and it is neither affordable nor livable.

I find NYC very livable. And limiting housing construction would not increase affordability, obviously. (PS: nobody every said that increasing density is all that's needed, but the converse -- being paranoidly anti-developer -- is only going to hurt, not help.)

You obviously don't have kids.

I have relatives raising kids in Brooklyn. Not sure how you can argue against 2 subway stops within 5 minutes, grocery store down the block, public school on the same block, Prospect Park 10 minutes away, Brooklyn library, etc etc etc ...

Ha. Famous last words. Just try it. I love NYC but the idea of raising kids in a little apartment sounds like torture. That's why everyone leaves the city when they have kids -- because they need more space, and no one except the very rich can afford to buy a house there.