Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a great Atlantic article explaining why city life got so expensive. In a nutshell, folks have been keeping costs artificially low. Honestly look at major cities in the world, all are very expensive. (Paris, London etc).

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/06/uber-ride-share-prices-high-inflation/661250/

I’m going to guess that the love affair with urbanism is going to slowly die out once people living in urban areas no longer have their lifestyles subsidized by Private Equity.

The advent of “walkable” suburbs will do the rest, because you get the best conveniences of both, in terms of being able to walk and use your car.

People have wanted to live in cities since before Uber and Door Dash …

When was that exactly?

It’s funny how I see a lot of urbanists talk about how much the suburbs are subsidized. Let’s see how well cities fare once city residents have to pay the full cost of city convenience. I’m going to guess that people really like cheap servants more than they like cities specifically.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Better yet, ask where these YIMBYs and their benefactors (to include their parents) live. Few to none will actually live their socialist lifestyle.

Nearly all of them were raised in SFH in the suburbs and they are playing out some childhood psychodrama through politics instead of getting therapy. They all now believe that it the suburbs were the cause of their unhappiness. Maybe it’s not the built environment that the cause of your problems?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a great Atlantic article explaining why city life got so expensive. In a nutshell, folks have been keeping costs artificially low. Honestly look at major cities in the world, all are very expensive. (Paris, London etc).

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/06/uber-ride-share-prices-high-inflation/661250/

I’m going to guess that the love affair with urbanism is going to slowly die out once people living in urban areas no longer have their lifestyles subsidized by Private Equity.

The advent of “walkable” suburbs will do the rest, because you get the best conveniences of both, in terms of being able to walk and use your car.

People have wanted to live in cities since before Uber and Door Dash …

When was that exactly?

It’s funny how I see a lot of urbanists talk about how much the suburbs are subsidized. Let’s see how well cities fare once city residents have to pay the full cost of city convenience. I’m going to guess that people really like cheap servants more than they like cities specifically.

Do people not use money-losing car share and delivery services in the suburbs or something?

When did people want to live in cities before Doordash? The “urban revival” following the white flight and hollowing out of cities directly correlated with the rise of these Private Equity urban lifestyle subsidies.

This sounds completely backwards. Isn't Doordash something that is used by people who can't walk to get food? I lived in Shaw before Doordash and when I wanted something I would.... walk to get it? I get a lot more delivery now in the suburbs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a great Atlantic article explaining why city life got so expensive. In a nutshell, folks have been keeping costs artificially low. Honestly look at major cities in the world, all are very expensive. (Paris, London etc).

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/06/uber-ride-share-prices-high-inflation/661250/

I’m going to guess that the love affair with urbanism is going to slowly die out once people living in urban areas no longer have their lifestyles subsidized by Private Equity.

The advent of “walkable” suburbs will do the rest, because you get the best conveniences of both, in terms of being able to walk and use your car.

People have wanted to live in cities since before Uber and Door Dash …

When was that exactly?

It’s funny how I see a lot of urbanists talk about how much the suburbs are subsidized. Let’s see how well cities fare once city residents have to pay the full cost of city convenience. I’m going to guess that people really like cheap servants more than they like cities specifically.

Do people not use money-losing car share and delivery services in the suburbs or something?

When did people want to live in cities before Doordash? The “urban revival” following the white flight and hollowing out of cities directly correlated with the rise of these Private Equity urban lifestyle subsidies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a great Atlantic article explaining why city life got so expensive. In a nutshell, folks have been keeping costs artificially low. Honestly look at major cities in the world, all are very expensive. (Paris, London etc).

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/06/uber-ride-share-prices-high-inflation/661250/

I’m going to guess that the love affair with urbanism is going to slowly die out once people living in urban areas no longer have their lifestyles subsidized by Private Equity.

The advent of “walkable” suburbs will do the rest, because you get the best conveniences of both, in terms of being able to walk and use your car.

People have wanted to live in cities since before Uber and Door Dash …

When was that exactly?

It’s funny how I see a lot of urbanists talk about how much the suburbs are subsidized. Let’s see how well cities fare once city residents have to pay the full cost of city convenience. I’m going to guess that people really like cheap servants more than they like cities specifically.

Do people not use money-losing car share and delivery services in the suburbs or something?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a great Atlantic article explaining why city life got so expensive. In a nutshell, folks have been keeping costs artificially low. Honestly look at major cities in the world, all are very expensive. (Paris, London etc).

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/06/uber-ride-share-prices-high-inflation/661250/

I’m going to guess that the love affair with urbanism is going to slowly die out once people living in urban areas no longer have their lifestyles subsidized by Private Equity.

The advent of “walkable” suburbs will do the rest, because you get the best conveniences of both, in terms of being able to walk and use your car.

People have wanted to live in cities since before Uber and Door Dash …

When was that exactly?

It’s funny how I see a lot of urbanists talk about how much the suburbs are subsidized. Let’s see how well cities fare once city residents have to pay the full cost of city convenience. I’m going to guess that people really like cheap servants more than they like cities specifically.

Anonymous wrote:Better yet, ask where these YIMBYs and their benefactors (to include their parents) live. Few to none will actually live their socialist lifestyle.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a great Atlantic article explaining why city life got so expensive. In a nutshell, folks have been keeping costs artificially low. Honestly look at major cities in the world, all are very expensive. (Paris, London etc).

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/06/uber-ride-share-prices-high-inflation/661250/

I’m going to guess that the love affair with urbanism is going to slowly die out once people living in urban areas no longer have their lifestyles subsidized by Private Equity.

The advent of “walkable” suburbs will do the rest, because you get the best conveniences of both, in terms of being able to walk and use your car.

People have wanted to live in cities since before Uber and Door Dash …

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a great Atlantic article explaining why city life got so expensive. In a nutshell, folks have been keeping costs artificially low. Honestly look at major cities in the world, all are very expensive. (Paris, London etc).

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/06/uber-ride-share-prices-high-inflation/661250/

I’m going to guess that the love affair with urbanism is going to slowly die out once people living in urban areas no longer have their lifestyles subsidized by Private Equity.

The advent of “walkable” suburbs will do the rest, because you get the best conveniences of both, in terms of being able to walk and use your car.

Anonymous wrote:Better yet, ask where these YIMBYs and their benefactors (to include their parents) live. Few to none will actually live their socialist lifestyle.

Anonymous wrote:This is a great Atlantic article explaining why city life got so expensive. In a nutshell, folks have been keeping costs artificially low. Honestly look at major cities in the world, all are very expensive. (Paris, London etc).

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/06/uber-ride-share-prices-high-inflation/661250/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Detached single family homes inside the beltway accommodate a smaller share of the population than they did 30 years ago, and household incomes have gone up. That means prices have gone way up.

If those SF homes are replaced with multifamily housing, single family homes inside the beltway will accommodate an even smaller share of the population. Prices will keep going up.

The YIMBYs have grown fond of positing SF home listings and screaming about the prices, but there’s nothing their proposals will do to reverse the trend. Prices for SF detached would go up even faster if YIMBY policies actually worked. It’s just the usual YIMBY distortion.

The only thing that will stop this trend is a big recession, very high interest rates, or a massive and sustained population decline.

I’d rather live in one of those tiny post-war brick houses than a stacked duplex or townhouse made out of manufactured wood. No way am I paying $800k to share walls or a floor with someone else.

So I guess it boils down to defining what it means to say that a policy "works." If your definition of "works" is that you can afford to live in the type of housing you personally prefer when you couldn't otherwise, I think you're right when you say that it would take big recession or a sustained population decline. I don't think high interest rates would change anything. And you'd have to hope that you weren't personally one of the people driven away by the recession or the population decline.

Now, if my definition of what it means to say that a policy "works" is to say that more people get to live in housing that better fits their needs, then yes, building more housing accomplishes that.

Their needs according to whom? Time and again people have proven that they’ll endure long commutes to buy SF detached.

People say it loud and clear in surveys and they the practice this in the market.

89% of homebuyers would prefer a single-family home with a backyard over a unit in a triplex with a shorter commute.

https://www.redfin.com/news/millennial-homebuyers-prefer-single-family-homes/

I hope Jeff tells us what lobbyist or crazy people are running this thread. It is completely bizarre. NIMBY serves the people who already live there. YIMBY serves developers. Elected officials don’t really benefit by helping people who don’t live in their districts yet and don’t have much money. So it never happens. Happy now?

As for SFHs we have tons in Baltimore for cheap. But someone no one is buying. Want to discuss that in light of this survey?

It’s almost like revealed preferences confirm that the “build to the property line” mantra of the YIMBY/urbanist crowd is unpopular. Baltimore neighborhoods where the THs have front setbacks (yard/porch) have some decent amount of demand. The ones where your front door opens onto a bus stop, not so much. And I cannot believe that this obvious statement needs to be said but here we are. Turns out that set backs are good. Who could’ve guessed.

Why should the revealed preferences of people who can afford SFH with setbacks dictate what happens to all of land use and zoning?

If you can follow the point, it would be that Baltimore would actually be very thriving city right now except for that fact that they are stuck with housing stock and urban design that follows the YIMBY/urbanist mindset. It turns out people don’t like it.

Ok, so the economic problems now in Baltimore are due to the rowhouses built in the 1800s with no setbacks - is that right? Honestly, you people.

Yes. The process requires individual investors taking risks. Neighborhoods like this cannot gentrify with new investment because the existing housing stock is not worth saving.

Which would be due to a zoning restriction that prevents them from being redeveloped, right?

No. Nothing to do with zoning and everything to do with sh*tty, low quality housing stock that needs to be demolished and rebuilt block by block. The problem is that requires institutional money, which won’t finance this prospectively.

This system requires little guys to take the risks first before the institutional money piled in. But without the “good bones”, there is nothing to work with.

It’s why Eckington has seen a resurgence in DC. Nice old houses just in need of a little TLC. Not enough neighborhoods in Baltimore with row houses with front setbacks, porch and front and rear yards.

And to be clear, this is exactly the YIMBY mantra. No setbacks, build to the property line and build cheaply. Turns out that this is not a great idea.

I bought on Capitol Hill, and we have rowhouses with setbacks, porches, yards, etc. it’s what makes the neighborhood so nice.

Exactly. And would you believe that YIMBY urbanists think those things (setbacks, yards, etc) are bad?

Every neighborhood in Baltimore that has rowhouses like Capitol Hill, front setbacks/porches, is in good shape. Every place where neighborhoods are in decline share the same feature, housing built to the property line with no setbacks. Just as the YIMBYs preach. It’s ironic that they claim to be centered on economics.

I'm pretty sure the lack of setbacks is not the problem with Baltimore ... anyway, there are many blocks on the Hill that don't have setbacks, and NYC basically does not have any setbacks. Philadelphia has gorgeous blocks with no/barely any setbacks.

I find it odd that the rallying cry of urbanists fault planning and design for poor societal outcomes but are incapable of being critical in their own theories when they are proven not to work. It’s a funny hill to die on since you’ve never been to Baltimore. Every neighborhood that has at least set backs with porches is in good shape. And the reality that you folks don’t seem to understand is that it’s not “one size fits all”.

There are some no setback neighborhoods that are doing good, like Canton or Fells Point, but that’s only because they have amenities (near water, historic), which is similar to Philly. Neighborhoods dominated by housing with no setbacks built specifically as working class “affordable housing” (also extremely narrow) are just devastated and no “urban homesteader” bothers to give it go, ever wonder why? It’s not the crime, it’s the lack of financial return. The problem is that you cannot just rehab one house when you need to tear down and rebuild a whole block. Go on believing your fantasies.

I'm pretty sure it's the crime.

And I’m pretty sure you’ve never been to Baltimore and you are also too young to remember when crime was rampant and quite scary around Logan Circle. It’s amazing what good housing stock can do for a neighborhood.

Ok, I assume you're running off to buy a SFH in Ward 8?

And now you are showing yourself to be what it’s clear that you are: racist. Plenty of people are buying EOTR where there is good housing stock. Notably they are not buying where there is not good housing stock.

There are some absolute gems of high quality housing stock EOTR that has been renovated and getting renovated and snatched up for good money.
https://www.redfin.com/DC/Washington/1341-W-St-SE-20020/home/10158771

Keep being a racist, it looks like it’s workIng out well for you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Detached single family homes inside the beltway accommodate a smaller share of the population than they did 30 years ago, and household incomes have gone up. That means prices have gone way up.

If those SF homes are replaced with multifamily housing, single family homes inside the beltway will accommodate an even smaller share of the population. Prices will keep going up.

The YIMBYs have grown fond of positing SF home listings and screaming about the prices, but there’s nothing their proposals will do to reverse the trend. Prices for SF detached would go up even faster if YIMBY policies actually worked. It’s just the usual YIMBY distortion.

The only thing that will stop this trend is a big recession, very high interest rates, or a massive and sustained population decline.

I’d rather live in one of those tiny post-war brick houses than a stacked duplex or townhouse made out of manufactured wood. No way am I paying $800k to share walls or a floor with someone else.

So I guess it boils down to defining what it means to say that a policy "works." If your definition of "works" is that you can afford to live in the type of housing you personally prefer when you couldn't otherwise, I think you're right when you say that it would take big recession or a sustained population decline. I don't think high interest rates would change anything. And you'd have to hope that you weren't personally one of the people driven away by the recession or the population decline.

Now, if my definition of what it means to say that a policy "works" is to say that more people get to live in housing that better fits their needs, then yes, building more housing accomplishes that.

Their needs according to whom? Time and again people have proven that they’ll endure long commutes to buy SF detached.

People say it loud and clear in surveys and they the practice this in the market.

89% of homebuyers would prefer a single-family home with a backyard over a unit in a triplex with a shorter commute.

https://www.redfin.com/news/millennial-homebuyers-prefer-single-family-homes/

I hope Jeff tells us what lobbyist or crazy people are running this thread. It is completely bizarre. NIMBY serves the people who already live there. YIMBY serves developers. Elected officials don’t really benefit by helping people who don’t live in their districts yet and don’t have much money. So it never happens. Happy now?

As for SFHs we have tons in Baltimore for cheap. But someone no one is buying. Want to discuss that in light of this survey?

It’s almost like revealed preferences confirm that the “build to the property line” mantra of the YIMBY/urbanist crowd is unpopular. Baltimore neighborhoods where the THs have front setbacks (yard/porch) have some decent amount of demand. The ones where your front door opens onto a bus stop, not so much. And I cannot believe that this obvious statement needs to be said but here we are. Turns out that set backs are good. Who could’ve guessed.

Why should the revealed preferences of people who can afford SFH with setbacks dictate what happens to all of land use and zoning?

If you can follow the point, it would be that Baltimore would actually be very thriving city right now except for that fact that they are stuck with housing stock and urban design that follows the YIMBY/urbanist mindset. It turns out people don’t like it.

Ok, so the economic problems now in Baltimore are due to the rowhouses built in the 1800s with no setbacks - is that right? Honestly, you people.

Yes. The process requires individual investors taking risks. Neighborhoods like this cannot gentrify with new investment because the existing housing stock is not worth saving.

Which would be due to a zoning restriction that prevents them from being redeveloped, right?

No. Nothing to do with zoning and everything to do with sh*tty, low quality housing stock that needs to be demolished and rebuilt block by block. The problem is that requires institutional money, which won’t finance this prospectively.

This system requires little guys to take the risks first before the institutional money piled in. But without the “good bones”, there is nothing to work with.

It’s why Eckington has seen a resurgence in DC. Nice old houses just in need of a little TLC. Not enough neighborhoods in Baltimore with row houses with front setbacks, porch and front and rear yards.

And to be clear, this is exactly the YIMBY mantra. No setbacks, build to the property line and build cheaply. Turns out that this is not a great idea.

I bought on Capitol Hill, and we have rowhouses with setbacks, porches, yards, etc. it’s what makes the neighborhood so nice.

Exactly. And would you believe that YIMBY urbanists think those things (setbacks, yards, etc) are bad?

Every neighborhood in Baltimore that has rowhouses like Capitol Hill, front setbacks/porches, is in good shape. Every place where neighborhoods are in decline share the same feature, housing built to the property line with no setbacks. Just as the YIMBYs preach. It’s ironic that they claim to be centered on economics.

I'm pretty sure the lack of setbacks is not the problem with Baltimore ... anyway, there are many blocks on the Hill that don't have setbacks, and NYC basically does not have any setbacks. Philadelphia has gorgeous blocks with no/barely any setbacks.

I find it odd that the rallying cry of urbanists fault planning and design for poor societal outcomes but are incapable of being critical in their own theories when they are proven not to work. It’s a funny hill to die on since you’ve never been to Baltimore. Every neighborhood that has at least set backs with porches is in good shape. And the reality that you folks don’t seem to understand is that it’s not “one size fits all”.

There are some no setback neighborhoods that are doing good, like Canton or Fells Point, but that’s only because they have amenities (near water, historic), which is similar to Philly. Neighborhoods dominated by housing with no setbacks built specifically as working class “affordable housing” (also extremely narrow) are just devastated and no “urban homesteader” bothers to give it go, ever wonder why? It’s not the crime, it’s the lack of financial return. The problem is that you cannot just rehab one house when you need to tear down and rebuild a whole block. Go on believing your fantasies.

I'm pretty sure it's the crime.

And I’m pretty sure you’ve never been to Baltimore and you are also too young to remember when crime was rampant and quite scary around Logan Circle. It’s amazing what good housing stock can do for a neighborhood.

Ok, I assume you're running off to buy a SFH in Ward 8?

And now you are showing yourself to be what it’s clear that you are: racist. Plenty of people are buying EOTR where there is good housing stock. Notably they are not buying where there is not good housing stock.

There are some absolute gems of high quality housing stock EOTR that has been renovated and getting renovated and snatched up for good money.
https://www.redfin.com/DC/Washington/1341-W-St-SE-20020/home/10158771

Keep being a racist, it looks like it’s workIng out well for you.