Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This resident favors townhouses on upper Wisconsin. DC's population is not growing, so adding thousands of apartments and small condos serves no purposes other than short term profits to the developers unless everyone in DC plans to move to Ward 3. Upper Wisc is basically a residential area with a commercial strip. Building lots of townhouses increases density and no doubt would make the area more affordable for many. FH easily could be built as a solid townhouse community without overly burdening the current infrastructure.

There is a less than zero chance for townhouses in Friendship Heights where the Lord and Taylor and Bus Garage are located. These are zoned for high use, high occupancy and intensive development.

Posting your favor for townhouses there so many times is not going to make it happen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But FH will be developed for better or worse. Would you prefer townhomes or high rises? I say this as someone who generally opposes development, but I don't see the point of lots of one bedroom condos that will ultimately be filled with voucher holders.

Townhouses preferred.

Townhomes make a lot more sense. There needs to be a mix of housing options and that is what is missing.

Townhomes are perfect for this area. You can add housing without disrupting the character too much. Way better than condos/apartments.

"character"

You mean the lilly white segratationist model?

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.

The the high rises should have 2, 3 and 4 BR units. Townhouses are a waste of space in that location.

Anonymous wrote:Anything is better than the current set up but you’d think they could come up with less boring and cookie cutter designs. Like the library is very modern and nice. More of that?

This looks so boring. Also thank you thank you DH for not letting me buy anywhere near Wisconsin. Phew!

The OP images are just represenative and nothing close to what it would actually look like.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This resident favors townhouses on upper Wisconsin. DC's population is not growing, so adding thousands of apartments and small condos serves no purposes other than short term profits to the developers unless everyone in DC plans to move to Ward 3. Upper Wisc is basically a residential area with a commercial strip. Building lots of townhouses increases density and no doubt would make the area more affordable for many. FH easily could be built as a solid townhouse community without overly burdening the current infrastructure.

To the extent you believe the city cares what any of you think in terms of FH development...you lose all credibility and look foolish when you suggest townhomes when none are remotely proposed.

I get that this is just everyone screaming into the void of DCUM, but hopefully everyone realizes any input on townhomes will be 100% ignored and you don't get bent out of shape about it.

It's more than that. The population has been roughly stable for 40 years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This resident favors townhouses on upper Wisconsin. DC's population is not growing, so adding thousands of apartments and small condos serves no purposes other than short term profits to the developers unless everyone in DC plans to move to Ward 3. Upper Wisc is basically a residential area with a commercial strip. Building lots of townhouses increases density and no doubt would make the area more affordable for many. FH easily could be built as a solid townhouse community without overly burdening the current infrastructure.

DC's population is not growing because the rent is too damn high.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes and if zoning forbids building anything on a plot smaller than 10-acres, then I will never get to live in Faquier County. Or Maui.

People who can’t afford FH at current prices get to live someplace else. And that’s ok!

...or government can change the zoning.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This resident favors townhouses on upper Wisconsin. DC's population is not growing, so adding thousands of apartments and small condos serves no purposes other than short term profits to the developers unless everyone in DC plans to move to Ward 3. Upper Wisc is basically a residential area with a commercial strip. Building lots of townhouses increases density and no doubt would make the area more affordable for many. FH easily could be built as a solid townhouse community without overly burdening the current infrastructure.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Vouchers are well above market rate. It has been investigated and documented.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not if it means hundreds of new apartments, no I don’t. The congestion and density is the issue, not whether the couple are GS-14s vs. hand surgeons

oh good. I agree.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not if it means hundreds of new apartments, no I don’t. The congestion and density is the issue, not whether the couple are GS-14s vs. hand surgeons

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes and if zoning forbids building anything on a plot smaller than 10-acres, then I will never get to live in Faquier County. Or Maui.

People who can’t afford FH at current prices get to live someplace else. And that’s ok!

Are there zoning restrictions on the to-be-developed parcels in FH? I thought it was all zoned commercial.

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

But there's no reason to have zoning restrictions that make it impossible for anyone except people who can afford expensive single-family homes to live in Friendship Heights — a neighborhood that includes a major commercial corridor and a Metro stop. It's not Maui.

Plus, there's no reason to think adding apartment buildings on Wisconsin will change much for people who live deeper inside the neighborhood. It might make things more crowded for me, personally, as I live less than a block from Wisconsin and almost directly across the street from a parcel targeted for up-zoning. But just because something might be marginally less convenient or desirable for me personally doesn't mean it's bad public policy, and I'm fine with it.