Anonymous wrote:
But this, in bold, is the key point. The demand for housing in Arlington, for all intents and purposes, is limitless. It far exceeds the number of housing units that could ever be added.

One more time, we are discussing a legislative change that would impact every jurisdiction in NoVa if passed (and at the same time Bowser is, controversially trying to do similar things in DC)

The notion that the demand for housing in close in parts of Metro DC is in any way shape or form, limitless, is absurd.

Where exactly do all these people come from? Be specific.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You don't think there's 100,000 people who'd happily move to Arlington if prices came down? That's 1.6 percent of the 6.2 million people in the metro area.

You'd run out of places to put housing before you could ever accommodate everyone who would move there.

That's why its so wonderful that you (or your pal) referenced DC above - though you omitted new development, actual and potential, in Alexandria City, Falls Church City, in Bethesda and Tysons Corner, etc.

That's why this needs to be a regional initiative and why MWCOG has established regional goals.

The general point is that increasing density in Arlington wouldn't reduce housing prices in Arlington because people would trade up from other neighborhoods. You would expect to instead see lower housing prices in the least desirable places in the metro area because that's where supply would finally exceed demand.

It would be like if New York decided to build apartments in Central Park. You wouldn't expect living in Central Park to become cheaper than living in Queens. People would move into those Central Park apartments from other, less desirable places in the city. As those people left, other people would take their old units, moving into them from even less desirable places in the NYC metro area. Those least desirable places are where prices would fall.

As for MWCOG's regional goals, it's nice they wrote something down on paper but these are the same people who can't stop the public from abandoning in droves what used to be a world class subway system.

This is what the Federal Reserve paper implies. It's obviously not talking about Arlington or New York or anywhere specifically, but it's general analysis that building more housing units in desirable areas to live doesn't reduce housing prices, because it encourages more people to move to that area suggests this.

That's not exactly what the paper said. Adding additional units doesn't manage to satisfy demand. Since the demand remains unchanged, the rent doesn't change. The paper strongly indicated that the only way to influence prices was to make the lower prices rentals more attractive by increasing available amenities. People would move to the cheaper rentals and force the more expensive rentals to lower their price to be competitive.

The paper implies that people don't upgrade when new units become available at a higher price.

But this, in bold, is the key point. The demand for housing in Arlington, for all intents and purposes, is limitless. It far exceeds the number of housing units that could ever be added.

As another pointed out, the paper doesn't allow for "migration" between high and low prices rentals. Some might migrate to higher price rentals with better amenities as they become available but in theory they would have already done so if they could. That's Tiebout's hypothesis. But the primary defect with it is that migration takes additional resources, like first/past months rent and moving expenses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know how they could reduce housing prices in DC? Fund the subway. Making living outside the city more convenient. As people voted with their feet, and moved to Virginia or Maryland, that would bring down rents in the District. Of course, that would require our elected leaders to stop chronically shortchanging the metro, which will probably never happen.

Metro has never added the stops that would make it profitable and useful. It should be funded solely by the fares if it really is competitive with other commuting options. However, metro has become a pension plan that runs a transportation system.

I hate that this is correct, but it is true.

Anonymous wrote:You know how they could reduce housing prices in DC? Fund the subway. Making living outside the city more convenient. As people voted with their feet, and moved to Virginia or Maryland, that would bring down rents in the District. Of course, that would require our elected leaders to stop chronically shortchanging the metro, which will probably never happen.

Metro has never added the stops that would make it profitable and useful. It should be funded solely by the fares if it really is competitive with other commuting options. However, metro has become a pension plan that runs a transportation system.

You know how they could reduce housing prices in DC? Fund the subway. Making living outside the city more convenient. As people voted with their feet, and moved to Virginia or Maryland, that would bring down rents in the District. Of course, that would require our elected leaders to stop chronically shortchanging the metro, which will probably never happen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You don't think there's 100,000 people who'd happily move to Arlington if prices came down? That's 1.6 percent of the 6.2 million people in the metro area.

You'd run out of places to put housing before you could ever accommodate everyone who would move there.

That's why its so wonderful that you (or your pal) referenced DC above - though you omitted new development, actual and potential, in Alexandria City, Falls Church City, in Bethesda and Tysons Corner, etc.

That's why this needs to be a regional initiative and why MWCOG has established regional goals.

The general point is that increasing density in Arlington wouldn't reduce housing prices in Arlington because people would trade up from other neighborhoods. You would expect to instead see lower housing prices in the least desirable places in the metro area because that's where supply would finally exceed demand.

It would be like if New York decided to build apartments in Central Park. You wouldn't expect living in Central Park to become cheaper than living in Queens. People would move into those Central Park apartments from other, less desirable places in the city. As those people left, other people would take their old units, moving into them from even less desirable places in the NYC metro area. Those least desirable places are where prices would fall.

As for MWCOG's regional goals, it's nice they wrote something down on paper but these are the same people who can't stop the public from abandoning in droves what used to be a world class subway system.

This is what the Federal Reserve paper implies. It's obviously not talking about Arlington or New York or anywhere specifically, but it's general analysis that building more housing units in desirable areas to live doesn't reduce housing prices, because it encourages more people to move to that area suggests this.

That's not exactly what the paper said. Adding additional units doesn't manage to satisfy demand. Since the demand remains unchanged, the rent doesn't change. The paper strongly indicated that the only way to influence prices was to make the lower prices rentals more attractive by increasing available amenities. People would move to the cheaper rentals and force the more expensive rentals to lower their price to be competitive.

The paper implies that people don't upgrade when new units become available at a higher price.

But this, in bold, is the key point. The demand for housing in Arlington, for all intents and purposes, is limitless. It far exceeds the number of housing units that could ever be added.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You don't think there's 100,000 people who'd happily move to Arlington if prices came down? That's 1.6 percent of the 6.2 million people in the metro area.

You'd run out of places to put housing before you could ever accommodate everyone who would move there.

That's why its so wonderful that you (or your pal) referenced DC above - though you omitted new development, actual and potential, in Alexandria City, Falls Church City, in Bethesda and Tysons Corner, etc.

That's why this needs to be a regional initiative and why MWCOG has established regional goals.

The general point is that increasing density in Arlington wouldn't reduce housing prices in Arlington because people would trade up from other neighborhoods. You would expect to instead see lower housing prices in the least desirable places in the metro area because that's where supply would finally exceed demand.

It would be like if New York decided to build apartments in Central Park. You wouldn't expect living in Central Park to become cheaper than living in Queens. People would move into those Central Park apartments from other, less desirable places in the city. As those people left, other people would take their old units, moving into them from even less desirable places in the NYC metro area. Those least desirable places are where prices would fall.

As for MWCOG's regional goals, it's nice they wrote something down on paper but these are the same people who can't stop the public from abandoning in droves what used to be a world class subway system.

This is what the Federal Reserve paper implies. It's obviously not talking about Arlington or New York or anywhere specifically, but it's general analysis that building more housing units in desirable areas to live doesn't reduce housing prices, because it encourages more people to move to that area suggests this.

That's not exactly what the paper said. Adding additional units doesn't manage to satisfy demand. Since the demand remains unchanged, the rent doesn't change. The paper strongly indicated that the only way to influence prices was to make the lower prices rentals more attractive by increasing available amenities. People would move to the cheaper rentals and force the more expensive rentals to lower their price to be competitive.

The paper implies that people don't upgrade when new units become available at a higher price.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You don't think there's 100,000 people who'd happily move to Arlington if prices came down? That's 1.6 percent of the 6.2 million people in the metro area.

You'd run out of places to put housing before you could ever accommodate everyone who would move there.

That's why its so wonderful that you (or your pal) referenced DC above - though you omitted new development, actual and potential, in Alexandria City, Falls Church City, in Bethesda and Tysons Corner, etc.

That's why this needs to be a regional initiative and why MWCOG has established regional goals.

The general point is that increasing density in Arlington wouldn't reduce housing prices in Arlington because people would trade up from other neighborhoods. You would expect to instead see lower housing prices in the least desirable places in the metro area because that's where supply would finally exceed demand.

It would be like if New York decided to build apartments in Central Park. You wouldn't expect living in Central Park to become cheaper than living in Queens. People would move into those Central Park apartments from other, less desirable places in the city. As those people left, other people would take their old units, moving into them from even less desirable places in the NYC metro area. Those least desirable places are where prices would fall.

As for MWCOG's regional goals, it's nice they wrote something down on paper but these are the same people who can't stop the public from abandoning in droves what used to be a world class subway system.

This is what the Federal Reserve paper implies. It's obviously not talking about Arlington or New York or anywhere specifically, but it's general analysis that building more housing units in desirable areas to live doesn't reduce housing prices, because it encourages more people to move to that area suggests this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


It would be like if New York decided to build apartments in Central Park. You wouldn't expect living in Central Park to become cheaper than living in Queens. People would move into those Central Park apartments from other, less desirable places in the city. As those people left, other people would take their old units, moving into them from even less desirable places in the NYC metro area. Those least desirable places are where prices would fall.

As for MWCOG's regional goals, it's nice they wrote something down on paper but these are the same people who can't stop the public from abandoning in droves what used to be a world class subway system.

1. Why owould people from Queens, etc who do not choose to move to near (not IN!) Central Park with current prices, do so when more units are built, UNLESS rents dropped near Central Park? You have not chosen to show the intermediate variable that leads from more units to people making different choices. Answer - the intermediate variable is PRICE. More units means lower prices means more people moving.

It won't make 5th Avenue cheaper than Queens now is - it WILL make it cheaper than 5th Avenue now is. Ditto for however many steps there are along the way. Lower rents at each step.

2. A. MWCOG does not run metro B. Metro ridership is beginnning to recover. C. Multiple jurisdictions are taking steps to meet those goals.

and again, I have to spend lots of words responding to an argument that you would realize is non sense if you took some econ and understood something about a demand curve.

That is why I usually do not respond, and why "you can't explain your theory" is BS.

Its like trying to explain global warming to someone who doesn't know what a molecule is. Its exhausting and fruitless.

Anonymous wrote:


It would be like if New York decided to build apartments in Central Park. You wouldn't expect living in Central Park to become cheaper than living in Queens. People would move into those Central Park apartments from other, less desirable places in the city. As those people left, other people would take their old units, moving into them from even less desirable places in the NYC metro area. Those least desirable places are where prices would fall.

As for MWCOG's regional goals, it's nice they wrote something down on paper but these are the same people who can't stop the public from abandoning in droves what used to be a world class subway system.

1. Why owould people from Queens, etc who do not choose to move to near (not IN!) Central Park with current prices, do so when more units are built, UNLESS rents dropped near Central Park? You have not chosen to show the intermediate variable that leads from more units to people making different choices. Answer - the intermediate variable is PRICE. More units means lower prices means more people moving.

It won't make 5th Avenue cheaper than Queens now is - it WILL make it cheaper than 5th Avenue now is. Ditto for however many steps there are along the way. Lower rents at each step.

2. A. MWCOG does not run metro B. Metro ridership is beginnning to recover. C. Multiple jurisdictions are taking steps to meet those goals.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You don't think there's 100,000 people who'd happily move to Arlington if prices came down? That's 1.6 percent of the 6.2 million people in the metro area.

You'd run out of places to put housing before you could ever accommodate everyone who would move there.

That's why its so wonderful that you (or your pal) referenced DC above - though you omitted new development, actual and potential, in Alexandria City, Falls Church City, in Bethesda and Tysons Corner, etc.

That's why this needs to be a regional initiative and why MWCOG has established regional goals.

There is no more room in the City Of Falls Church.

There is absolutely room in FC. Do you mean no more room for more detached SFHs?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You don't think there's 100,000 people who'd happily move to Arlington if prices came down? That's 1.6 percent of the 6.2 million people in the metro area.

You'd run out of places to put housing before you could ever accommodate everyone who would move there.

That's why its so wonderful that you (or your pal) referenced DC above - though you omitted new development, actual and potential, in Alexandria City, Falls Church City, in Bethesda and Tysons Corner, etc.

That's why this needs to be a regional initiative and why MWCOG has established regional goals.

There is no more room in the City Of Falls Church.

This is true, and becoming a reality elsewhere. I'm certainly not advocating building sky scrapers, but it looks like there is no where else to go but up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You don't think there's 100,000 people who'd happily move to Arlington if prices came down? That's 1.6 percent of the 6.2 million people in the metro area.

You'd run out of places to put housing before you could ever accommodate everyone who would move there.

That's why its so wonderful that you (or your pal) referenced DC above - though you omitted new development, actual and potential, in Alexandria City, Falls Church City, in Bethesda and Tysons Corner, etc.

That's why this needs to be a regional initiative and why MWCOG has established regional goals.

The general point is that increasing density in Arlington wouldn't reduce housing prices in Arlington because people would trade up from other neighborhoods. You would expect to instead see lower housing prices in the least desirable places in the metro area because that's where supply would finally exceed demand.

It would be like if New York decided to build apartments in Central Park. You wouldn't expect living in Central Park to become cheaper than living in Queens. People would move into those Central Park apartments from other, less desirable places in the city. As those people left, other people would take their old units, moving into them from even less desirable places in the NYC metro area. Those least desirable places are where prices would fall.

As for MWCOG's regional goals, it's nice they wrote something down on paper but these are the same people who can't stop the public from abandoning in droves what used to be a world class subway system.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You don't think there's 100,000 people who'd happily move to Arlington if prices came down? That's 1.6 percent of the 6.2 million people in the metro area.

You'd run out of places to put housing before you could ever accommodate everyone who would move there.

That's why its so wonderful that you (or your pal) referenced DC above - though you omitted new development, actual and potential, in Alexandria City, Falls Church City, in Bethesda and Tysons Corner, etc.

That's why this needs to be a regional initiative and why MWCOG has established regional goals.

There is no more room in the City Of Falls Church.

Views that people have about duplexes are shaped by what they've seen.

If you associate duplexes with the ratty duplex units in South Arlington or Queens, you can't help but think they'd be bad for property values.

On the other hand, if you've seen the expensive duplexes in Vancouver, you'd know they can fetch millions of dollars.

Seems like the desirability of an area dictates the price, rather than single vs. double occupancy.