Anonymous wrote:It will be interesting to see if DC becomes like NY with most families living in apartments. I have my doubts, but we'll see. For now, I am holding on to my too-big for an empty-nester home so that it is available in case one of my kids wants it. I think that's the case for many of my neighbors too.

If so, that's a sign that housing in DC is seriously messed up and not working well for anyone, including you and your neighbors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The question is whether that missing middle range should be filled with apartments or townhomes. I argue for townhomes because I think that's what's really missing.

Sorry no - and don’t use that term with regard to FH. “Missing” suggests that the thing * should* be there but it’s not, for some reason.

there are a lot of us who do not believe that more middle income housing must certainly be located there and therefore should be designated as “missing.”

You really don't want people with a combined income of, say $300k, living near you in AU park? That seems extreme.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have young adult children, and they are definitely not seeking 700 square foot 1 1/2 bedroom condos. They want three bedroom townhouses under 2000 square feet for under a million. Do such homes exist? All the new townhouses I see are $2 million and 3000 square feet.

Move to Rockville? You can’t afford NWDC if that’s the case. Idk why people think the world should cater to their budget?

They can’t afford NWDC due to zoning restrictions ….

So what? Not every person is entitled to live anywhere they like.

Put another way, everyone reading this will be prohibited from living somewhere as a direct result of residential zoning restrictions. For Paul and Susan, that somewhere is FH. For Tim and Liz, that somewhere is Maui. For Bob, that somewhere is Rockville

However, zoning is not about people being allowed to live where they like. Zoning is about the government forbidding property owners from building certain housing types.

It will be interesting to see if DC becomes like NY with most families living in apartments. I have my doubts, but we'll see. For now, I am holding on to my too-big for an empty-nester home so that it is available in case one of my kids wants it. I think that's the case for many of my neighbors too.

Anonymous wrote:The question is whether that missing middle range should be filled with apartments or townhomes. I argue for townhomes because I think that's what's really missing.

Sorry no - and don’t use that term with regard to FH. “Missing” suggests that the thing * should* be there but it’s not, for some reason.

there are a lot of us who do not believe that more middle income housing must certainly be located there and therefore should be designated as “missing.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Il’m not the previous poster, but please don’t make this into Ballston or Pike and Rose. Why would people live in DH if it just mimics those other places and they have lower taxes and better schools. Let’s rebuild Fh in a way that retains what’s special about the city. And yes, I’d live to see townhomes rather than tiny condos/apartments. We need places for families.

What is "special about the city" in your opinion?

Families live in apartments, too.

They do because there's not any starter home priced options. A $3-4k+ a month 2 bedroom rental apartment is not a substitute for a $500-750k townhouse.

That's the problem with housing right now. There's only two choices - an overpriced rental apartment with waterfall granite countertops or an overpriced detached house with white cabinets.

Rental costs are high, in part, because we've lost the mid-range price points.

News flash: a "starter home" in DC is now a condo. It's not a rowhouse. Please come back from 2005.

That's because there aren't many rowhouses. The big difference is rent versus ownership. Creating a bifurcated society is really bad over the long term.

There are a ton of row houses, just not that many of them in this part of Ward 3.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have young adult children, and they are definitely not seeking 700 square foot 1 1/2 bedroom condos. They want three bedroom townhouses under 2000 square feet for under a million. Do such homes exist? All the new townhouses I see are $2 million and 3000 square feet.

Move to Rockville? You can’t afford NWDC if that’s the case. Idk why people think the world should cater to their budget?

They can’t afford NWDC due to zoning restrictions ….

So what? Not every person is entitled to live anywhere they like.

Put another way, everyone reading this will be prohibited from living somewhere as a direct result of residential zoning restrictions. For Paul and Susan, that somewhere is FH. For Tim and Liz, that somewhere is Maui. For Bob, that somewhere is Rockville

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, if there is a vacancy rate of 25% in the city, it suggests that no apartments are needed. If the vacancy rate is 2%, that's a different story. These are just made up numbers, but that's part of how you decide what's needed.

Why are you making up numbers?

Just to illustrate how you know if the apartment market is saturated or not. I do not have the precise figures, but I know there is a fairly high vacancy rate in NWDC right now.

Per the following link, at the end of 3Q23 the DC rental vacancy rate was 7% and the homeowner vacancy rate was 0.8%.

There's clearly more demand for homes to purchase than for rentals. My prediction is that lots of these FH units will end up as condos for sale.

https://ipropertymanagement.com/research/rental-vacancy-rate?u=%2Fresearch%2Frental-vacancy-rate#dc

Page 13 of development plan criticizes the fact that only 5% of multifamily units built since 2000 are 3BR or higher. It sounds like they are going to focus on building family-sized apartments in the new FH development.

In terms of Inclusionary Zoning units, the FH buildings would have 20% eligible in exchange for the developer to do a FAR of 5.4 (instead of the by-right 3.0). The income limits are pretty high for these units, aiming squarely at public workers (teachers, police, etc).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, it is amazing to me that developers are willing to make these big bets when so many new developments have not been rented yet.

They're doing it on their dime.

Not when they have a government backstop of "market rate" rental vouchers. It's free money in that case and incentivizes both jacking up the cost and making them rental units.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love the idea of a townhouse community up there -- and some apartments if they are needed.

It's funny...do people think if you mention townhomes on DCUM enough times that the city and developers will somehow follow?

Nobody with any power over the Wisconsin Avenue development is suggesting townhomes, and none will be built...and in the remote chance that any are built, they will go for very high prices.

I guess we can live in our fantasy world where townhomes and Costco reside side-by-side...through in a fantastic new outdoor pool and I recall Frumin or someone lobbying for an indoor ice rink to be built in FH.

Feel free to add whatever you want to Fantasy Land.

I agree that no one is discussing townhomes up there right now, but it would be great if they could incorporate some. That is one type of housing that is definitely needed.

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, it is amazing to me that developers are willing to make these big bets when so many new developments have not been rented yet.

They're doing it on their dime.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love the idea of a townhouse community up there -- and some apartments if they are needed.

Who will decide whether or not apartments are "needed"? And needed by whom?

Ideally needed by those with incomes to pay for them as opposed to becoming privatized public housing without the rules or support or ability to quickly evict

Maybe the free market should decide, not a cohort of wealthy people who can control zoning.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, if there is a vacancy rate of 25% in the city, it suggests that no apartments are needed. If the vacancy rate is 2%, that's a different story. These are just made up numbers, but that's part of how you decide what's needed.

Why are you making up numbers?

Just to illustrate how you know if the apartment market is saturated or not. I do not have the precise figures, but I know there is a fairly high vacancy rate in NWDC right now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love the idea of a townhouse community up there -- and some apartments if they are needed.

Who will decide whether or not apartments are "needed"? And needed by whom?

Ideally needed by those with incomes to pay for them as opposed to becoming privatized public housing without the rules or support or ability to quickly evict

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, it is amazing to me that developers are willing to make these big bets when so many new developments have not been rented yet.

Agree.

And "affordable housing" are key pitch buzzwords that rarely, if ever, pan out that way. Same arguments were made about teachers and first responders re: Arlington "missing middle" etc. Same re: Wardman development. It's a way to generate support amongst the naive and gullible and rarely seems to benefit those discussed. Be wary.

PP, I would add, also when the population of DC does not seem to be increasing.