Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Society is waking up to the idea that there is something fundamentally unfair and unjust about wealthy people (usually white) living in McMansions on1.5 acre lots.

I hear this a lot, but I also see the people pushing for more density are always white and always a little too nervous about having to possibly move into predominantly black neighborhoods. Me thinks it's the density crowd that is kind of racist.

Advocates of increasing density: we need more housing units!
You: Nah, just go gentrify a poor black neighborhood.

Since there are poor areas with abandoned properties and lower density, your suggestion that gentrification = displacement falls flat. PP made a good point.

Ah.

Advocates of increasing density in the DC area: we need more housing units!
You: Nah, just move to Baltimore City.

Then when the highways get congested "We need bigger roads, the roads are crowded because of the War On Cars"

Anonymous wrote:[
Just to recap: These are white people (density advocates are invariably white)

Just looking at the folks who write articles for GGWash, several are not white.

Anonymous wrote:Well I guess I can keep my acreage since I'm not white.

Everyone can keep their acreage. Nothing in this takes anyones property away. It gives you more choices about what to do with your property.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Society is waking up to the idea that there is something fundamentally unfair and unjust about wealthy people (usually white) living in McMansions on1.5 acre lots.

I hear this a lot, but I also see the people pushing for more density are always white and always a little too nervous about having to possibly move into predominantly black neighborhoods. Me thinks it's the density crowd that is kind of racist.

Advocates of increasing density: we need more housing units!
You: Nah, just go gentrify a poor black neighborhood.

Just to recap: These are white people (density advocates are invariably white) who are so upset about being priced out of predominantly white neighborhoods that they are demanding the government change its zoning policies so that these white people can find a way to live in white neighborhoods.

You have to wonder about white people who are so insistent about living among other white people.

No, this is not a fact.

You have to wonder about people who insist that efforts to (for example) ALLOW (not require) property owners to build duplexes represent white people's efforts to live in white neighborhoods.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Society is waking up to the idea that there is something fundamentally unfair and unjust about wealthy people (usually white) living in McMansions on1.5 acre lots.

I hear this a lot, but I also see the people pushing for more density are always white and always a little too nervous about having to possibly move into predominantly black neighborhoods. Me thinks it's the density crowd that is kind of racist.

Advocates of increasing density: we need more housing units!
You: Nah, just go gentrify a poor black neighborhood.

Just to recap: These are white people (density advocates are invariably white) who are so upset about being priced out of predominantly white neighborhoods that they are demanding the government change its zoning policies so that these white people can find a way to live in white neighborhoods.

You have to wonder about white people who are so insistent about living among other white people.

^^^or Cumberland, I suppose.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Society is waking up to the idea that there is something fundamentally unfair and unjust about wealthy people (usually white) living in McMansions on1.5 acre lots.

I hear this a lot, but I also see the people pushing for more density are always white and always a little too nervous about having to possibly move into predominantly black neighborhoods. Me thinks it's the density crowd that is kind of racist.

Advocates of increasing density: we need more housing units!
You: Nah, just go gentrify a poor black neighborhood.

Since there are poor areas with abandoned properties and lower density, your suggestion that gentrification = displacement falls flat. PP made a good point.

Ah.

Advocates of increasing density in the DC area: we need more housing units!
You: Nah, just move to Baltimore City.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Society is waking up to the idea that there is something fundamentally unfair and unjust about wealthy people (usually white) living in McMansions on1.5 acre lots.

I hear this a lot, but I also see the people pushing for more density are always white and always a little too nervous about having to possibly move into predominantly black neighborhoods. Me thinks it's the density crowd that is kind of racist.

Advocates of increasing density: we need more housing units!
You: Nah, just go gentrify a poor black neighborhood.

Since there are poor areas with abandoned properties and lower density, your suggestion that gentrification = displacement falls flat. PP made a good point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Society is waking up to the idea that there is something fundamentally unfair and unjust about wealthy people (usually white) living in McMansions on1.5 acre lots.

I hear this a lot, but I also see the people pushing for more density are always white and always a little too nervous about having to possibly move into predominantly black neighborhoods. Me thinks it's the density crowd that is kind of racist.

Advocates of increasing density: we need more housing units!
You: Nah, just go gentrify a poor black neighborhood.

Anonymous wrote:Society is waking up to the idea that there is something fundamentally unfair and unjust about wealthy people (usually white) living in McMansions on1.5 acre lots.

I hear this a lot, but I also see the people pushing for more density are always white and always a little too nervous about having to possibly move into predominantly black neighborhoods. Me thinks it's the density crowd that is kind of racist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there was a way for governments to create lots of affordable housing in places where many people want to live, they would have figured it out by now.

People act like these issues are new, but cities like New York have been dealing with these questions for at least 150 years. And yet NYC is the (or among the) most expensive housing markets in the US (and also the most densely populated).

Folks on this thread seem to think there's easy answers here, but if there were, someone or some place, like NYC, would have already done it by now.

This.

It's funny how the most densely populated cities in America -- NYC, San Francisco, Los Angeles, DC, Boston -- are also the most expensive cities in America. It's the places that aren't densely populated that are the most affordable.

Those are also the wealthiest cities. It's almost as high incomes are correlated with high housing prices? Wait, could that be right? If you have a lot of people with a lot of money, then housing costs a lot? So weird.

Increasing density allowances will cause the price of current McLean homes to go up. The land becomes much more valuable.

Given the stalled out prices in McLean, y'all should be thankful for this development.

Well I guess I can keep my acreage since I'm not white.

Society is waking up to the idea that there is something fundamentally unfair and unjust about wealthy people (usually white) living in McMansions on1.5 acre lots.

Also, why do we have the Mall? Do we really need it? Do you know how many duplexes could fit there?

Actually high density works well with open space - see Central Park in NYC.

Also, the Capitol. Tear it down. Too big. No one even lives there! We could fit so many duplexes there.

Its an office building, in effect. Relatively dense one I guess. Lots of people work there. Maybe you should oppose it - it brings too much traffic and makes it harder to find parking!

Same with all these museums. Can't people just Google things they want to know or see?

We love walkable activity centers. Shouldn't you want every other museum on the mall torn down, to create parking lots for the ones that remain?

Come to think of it, you know what fits more people than expensive duplexes? Expensive triplexes.

Tear down all the duplexes. Put up triplexes.

I generall do support changes to zoning to allow triplexes (and quadruplexes too!) Note, saying "allow X as well as Y" does not mean "all Y must be torn down". Now do we need a statewide law in Va to change duplex only zoning? I don't think there is much duplex only zoning in Va.