Sure, Jawando wants to dislodge ToCC residents. So do the rest of the council members. They'll build lots of big apartments, get lots of developer money for their reelection campaigns. In the meantime, people have to live somewhere and families with kids often prefer to live in SFHs. Jawando is destroying opportunities for young families. Isn't Rosemary Hills within a mile of Silver Spring metro? Your next door neighbor will be able sell their property and you'll havea little garden apartment next door instead of kids to socialize with. I think the neighborhoods could turn over very quickly and I don't think the housing will be very nice. Jawando's war on single family homes is strange. It will negatively impact families just like his. But I was never impressed by Jawando. He isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn't this make these lots, even if they have a SFH on them already, more valuable?

potentially but imagine how neighborhoods would look during a transition. One family sells to a developer who puts up a 4 unit apartment building with no parking and on another lot a developer puts up 4 small houses and on another lot a developer puts up 4 townhouses. Part of the value is the aesthetics.

meanwhile all these new builds have no parking and your streets are now littered with 4 times the cars. Now if a developer comes in a makes it look great and high-end sure but the county probably won't allow that seeing they are pushing affordable housing

This exactly. Nobody with income wants to live in those kinds of dumpy neighborhoods.

Nope. Everyone will move to Fort Washington if this bill passes!

Sorry, I don't get it. Why would they move to Fort Washington?

That PP was being sarcastic. They are saying that the County will call the bluff of rich residents in Chevy Chase whose lots will be up-zoned. Some will move (likely for reasons unrelated to the zoning, eg downsizing in retirement), but most won’t.

The irony, of course, is that the County is just making Chevy Chase residents even richer as their land value skyrockets.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn't this make these lots, even if they have a SFH on them already, more valuable?

potentially but imagine how neighborhoods would look during a transition. One family sells to a developer who puts up a 4 unit apartment building with no parking and on another lot a developer puts up 4 small houses and on another lot a developer puts up 4 townhouses. Part of the value is the aesthetics.

meanwhile all these new builds have no parking and your streets are now littered with 4 times the cars. Now if a developer comes in a makes it look great and high-end sure but the county probably won't allow that seeing they are pushing affordable housing

This exactly. Nobody with income wants to live in those kinds of dumpy neighborhoods.

Nope. Everyone will move to Fort Washington if this bill passes!

Sorry, I don't get it. Why would they move to Fort Washington?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn't this make these lots, even if they have a SFH on them already, more valuable?

potentially but imagine how neighborhoods would look during a transition. One family sells to a developer who puts up a 4 unit apartment building with no parking and on another lot a developer puts up 4 small houses and on another lot a developer puts up 4 townhouses. Part of the value is the aesthetics.

meanwhile all these new builds have no parking and your streets are now littered with 4 times the cars. Now if a developer comes in a makes it look great and high-end sure but the county probably won't allow that seeing they are pushing affordable housing

This exactly. Nobody with income wants to live in those kinds of dumpy neighborhoods.

Nope. Everyone will move to Fort Washington if this bill passes!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn't this make these lots, even if they have a SFH on them already, more valuable?

potentially but imagine how neighborhoods would look during a transition. One family sells to a developer who puts up a 4 unit apartment building with no parking and on another lot a developer puts up 4 small houses and on another lot a developer puts up 4 townhouses. Part of the value is the aesthetics.

meanwhile all these new builds have no parking and your streets are now littered with 4 times the cars. Now if a developer comes in a makes it look great and high-end sure but the county probably won't allow that seeing they are pushing affordable housing

You're over-valuing aesthetics. The market doesn't place a premium on it. If they did, then the DC rowhouse condo conversions wouldn't sell. Instead, they have been in hot demand for the last 20 years. Location, location, location.

I'm really interested to see what happens in the west portion of Chevy Chase, close to Connecticut Ave: 46th Street, Leland, Elm, Willow, etc. Those houses are very close to the Metro. I can only imagine that the fight between the County and Town will be epic.

If you look at some of the teardown neighborhoods aesthetics are obviously almost an afterthought. As a example look at Leland on the south/west side of Wisconsin. Architects+critics have been sharing photos of that street as an example of bad development.

And the Town of Chevy Chase is almost entirely within 1 mile of the Bethesda Station. The fight over this could be extraordinary. I’m already popping myself extra popcorn!

You have to know Jawando is super excited to be going to battle with these neighborhoods. He thinks they have too much and it pisses him off. What about Jawando though? He has 4 kids. Doesn't he live in a neighborhood of single family homes? But conveniently not in R-60.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn't this make these lots, even if they have a SFH on them already, more valuable?

potentially but imagine how neighborhoods would look during a transition. One family sells to a developer who puts up a 4 unit apartment building with no parking and on another lot a developer puts up 4 small houses and on another lot a developer puts up 4 townhouses. Part of the value is the aesthetics.

meanwhile all these new builds have no parking and your streets are now littered with 4 times the cars. Now if a developer comes in a makes it look great and high-end sure but the county probably won't allow that seeing they are pushing affordable housing

This exactly. Nobody with income wants to live in those kinds of dumpy neighborhoods.

Anonymous wrote:This is my neighborhood, and I support the proposal.

Which neighborhood?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn't this make these lots, even if they have a SFH on them already, more valuable?

potentially but imagine how neighborhoods would look during a transition. One family sells to a developer who puts up a 4 unit apartment building with no parking and on another lot a developer puts up 4 small houses and on another lot a developer puts up 4 townhouses. Part of the value is the aesthetics.

meanwhile all these new builds have no parking and your streets are now littered with 4 times the cars. Now if a developer comes in a makes it look great and high-end sure but the county probably won't allow that seeing they are pushing affordable housing

You're over-valuing aesthetics. The market doesn't place a premium on it. If they did, then the DC rowhouse condo conversions wouldn't sell. Instead, they have been in hot demand for the last 20 years. Location, location, location.

I'm really interested to see what happens in the west portion of Chevy Chase, close to Connecticut Ave: 46th Street, Leland, Elm, Willow, etc. Those houses are very close to the Metro. I can only imagine that the fight between the County and Town will be epic.

If you look at some of the teardown neighborhoods aesthetics are obviously almost an afterthought. As a example look at Leland on the south/west side of Wisconsin. Architects+critics have been sharing photos of that street as an example of bad development.

And the Town of Chevy Chase is almost entirely within 1 mile of the Bethesda Station. The fight over this could be extraordinary. I’m already popping myself extra popcorn!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn't this make these lots, even if they have a SFH on them already, more valuable?

potentially but imagine how neighborhoods would look during a transition. One family sells to a developer who puts up a 4 unit apartment building with no parking and on another lot a developer puts up 4 small houses and on another lot a developer puts up 4 townhouses. Part of the value is the aesthetics.

meanwhile all these new builds have no parking and your streets are now littered with 4 times the cars. Now if a developer comes in a makes it look great and high-end sure but the county probably won't allow that seeing they are pushing affordable housing

You're over-valuing aesthetics. The market doesn't place a premium on it. If they did, then the DC rowhouse condo conversions wouldn't sell. Instead, they have been in hot demand for the last 20 years. Location, location, location.

I'm really interested to see what happens in the west portion of Chevy Chase, close to Connecticut Ave: 46th Street, Leland, Elm, Willow, etc. Those houses are very close to the Metro. I can only imagine that the fight between the County and Town will be epic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am trying to envision where these multifamily homes would fit on the current tiny lots that are near most red line metro stations. I live near Rockville. The lots of like 1/4 acre. No one is putting 4 small houses there unless they buy up several homes.

I’m thinking they aimed at 4-four unit buildings, where each floor is a 1,000 to 1,500 sqft apartment.

This. Or a developer will try to acquire two adjoining lots and build 4-6 attached high-end townhouses with parking under each house. Starting price would be $1m+ if walkable to Rockville Metro or pushing close to $2m in Chevy Chase or Bethesda. Height limitation will be increased so they can build a four-story townhouse.

Anonymous wrote:I am trying to envision where these multifamily homes would fit on the current tiny lots that are near most red line metro stations. I live near Rockville. The lots of like 1/4 acre. No one is putting 4 small houses there unless they buy up several homes.

I’m thinking they aimed at 4-four unit buildings, where each floor is a 1,000 to 1,500 sqft apartment.

Good.

I am trying to envision where these multifamily homes would fit on the current tiny lots that are near most red line metro stations. I live near Rockville. The lots of like 1/4 acre. No one is putting 4 small houses there unless they buy up several homes.

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn't this make these lots, even if they have a SFH on them already, more valuable?

potentially but imagine how neighborhoods would look during a transition. One family sells to a developer who puts up a 4 unit apartment building with no parking and on another lot a developer puts up 4 small houses and on another lot a developer puts up 4 townhouses. Part of the value is the aesthetics.

meanwhile all these new builds have no parking and your streets are now littered with 4 times the cars. Now if a developer comes in a makes it look great and high-end sure but the county probably won't allow that seeing they are pushing affordable housing

Wouldn't this make these lots, even if they have a SFH on them already, more valuable?