Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of tendentious arguments here about cities none of us live in.

You could, instead, just look around DC. Neighborhoods where the housing stock has greatly increased over the past decade or so have gotten a lot more expensive, not less expensive.

Look at Navy Yard. Look at U Street. Look at 14th Street. Look at H Street. Look at Shaw. Look at Logan Circle....

Reasoning from a price change: rookie mistake!

I don't know why everyone decided to replace the word "gentrification" with "upzoning." It's the same thing (and, no, just because you *wish* we could build giant apartment buildings in Georgetown doesn't change that). No one doubted what gentrification did to housing prices, and no one should think the result will be any different just because you've relabeled gentrification as "upzoning."

The reason you don't know why is because it didn't happen. They are different things. There might be upzoning and then gentrification, but gentrification can also happen without upzoning, and guess what? Upzoning can also happen without gentrification.

Uh, sure, in theory. In reality, it basically only happens in ungentrified areas. How else is DC getting so incredibly white? Because developers buy homes from black people and turn them into luxury condos they then sell to white people.

Obviously gentrification only happens in ungentrified areas. How would you go about gentrifying an area that is already gentrified?

DC is currently 38% non-Hispanic white.

What is odd here is that those supporting upzoning generally opposed gentrification. They in reality are the same-changing the character of a neighborhood against the wishes of its residents.

While that might be true, the momentum is on the side of the housing advocates, politicians (both R and D who support this), developers, and property investors. All these groups are very well-organized. The current residents of the single family neighborhoods may be opposed to the changes by and large, but they are a smaller group compared with the majority of residents who are renters, and they generally approve of the changes.

I disagree that the residents and homeowners who are against these zoning reforms are usually the smaller groups; they are less organized than the YIMBYs. Most people have jobs and family responsibilities so they cannot devote a bunch time to advocating against local zoning changes they disagree with. The economic benefits that accrue to the groups advocating for these zoning reforms are much more concentrated than the costs imposed on county residents opposed to the reforms. There is an asymmetric advantage for special interest groups (real estate industry, developers, construction companies) that provides them with greater financial return on advocating for zoning reforms even though they are largely unpopular with the general public. There is generally an asymmetric advantage to lobbying that favors special interest groups over voters' preferences.

Eh. The people who advocate FOR the local zoning changes also have jobs and family responsibilities. For as much as you want to think this is an issue of special interest groups vs. the general public - it's just not true.

Anonymous wrote:Graduate schools of urban planning and urban policy are very urban focused: increasing density and promoting denser and innovative housing options like micro-units, bungalow apartment courts, multi-plex housing, eliminating parking minimums, promoting transit and ped/biking infrastructure, street narrowing projects, etc., all popular for the most part but antithetical to single family home densities.

The anti-housing advocates would need to make changes at the academic level if they want their voices heard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of tendentious arguments here about cities none of us live in.

You could, instead, just look around DC. Neighborhoods where the housing stock has greatly increased over the past decade or so have gotten a lot more expensive, not less expensive.

Look at Navy Yard. Look at U Street. Look at 14th Street. Look at H Street. Look at Shaw. Look at Logan Circle....

Reasoning from a price change: rookie mistake!

I don't know why everyone decided to replace the word "gentrification" with "upzoning." It's the same thing (and, no, just because you *wish* we could build giant apartment buildings in Georgetown doesn't change that). No one doubted what gentrification did to housing prices, and no one should think the result will be any different just because you've relabeled gentrification as "upzoning."

The reason you don't know why is because it didn't happen. They are different things. There might be upzoning and then gentrification, but gentrification can also happen without upzoning, and guess what? Upzoning can also happen without gentrification.

Uh, sure, in theory. In reality, it basically only happens in ungentrified areas. How else is DC getting so incredibly white? Because developers buy homes from black people and turn them into luxury condos they then sell to white people.

Obviously gentrification only happens in ungentrified areas. How would you go about gentrifying an area that is already gentrified?

DC is currently 38% non-Hispanic white.

What is odd here is that those supporting upzoning generally opposed gentrification. They in reality are the same-changing the character of a neighborhood against the wishes of its residents.

While that might be true, the momentum is on the side of the housing advocates, politicians (both R and D who support this), developers, and property investors. All these groups are very well-organized. The current residents of the single family neighborhoods may be opposed to the changes by and large, but they are a smaller group compared with the majority of residents who are renters, and they generally approve of the changes.

I disagree that the residents and homeowners who are against these zoning reforms are usually the smaller groups; they are less organized than the YIMBYs. Most people have jobs and family responsibilities so they cannot devote a bunch time to advocating against local zoning changes they disagree with. The economic benefits that accrue to the groups advocating for these zoning reforms are much more concentrated than the costs imposed on county residents opposed to the reforms. There is an asymmetric advantage for special interest groups (real estate industry, developers, construction companies) that provides them with greater financial return on advocating for zoning reforms even though they are largely unpopular with the general public. There is generally an asymmetric advantage to lobbying that favors special interest groups over voters' preferences.

Eh. The people who advocate FOR the local zoning changes also have jobs and family responsibilities. For as much as you want to think this is an issue of special interest groups vs. the general public - it's just not true.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of tendentious arguments here about cities none of us live in.

You could, instead, just look around DC. Neighborhoods where the housing stock has greatly increased over the past decade or so have gotten a lot more expensive, not less expensive.

Look at Navy Yard. Look at U Street. Look at 14th Street. Look at H Street. Look at Shaw. Look at Logan Circle....

Reasoning from a price change: rookie mistake!

I don't know why everyone decided to replace the word "gentrification" with "upzoning." It's the same thing (and, no, just because you *wish* we could build giant apartment buildings in Georgetown doesn't change that). No one doubted what gentrification did to housing prices, and no one should think the result will be any different just because you've relabeled gentrification as "upzoning."

The reason you don't know why is because it didn't happen. They are different things. There might be upzoning and then gentrification, but gentrification can also happen without upzoning, and guess what? Upzoning can also happen without gentrification.

Uh, sure, in theory. In reality, it basically only happens in ungentrified areas. How else is DC getting so incredibly white? Because developers buy homes from black people and turn them into luxury condos they then sell to white people.

Obviously gentrification only happens in ungentrified areas. How would you go about gentrifying an area that is already gentrified?

DC is currently 38% non-Hispanic white.

What is odd here is that those supporting upzoning generally opposed gentrification. They in reality are the same-changing the character of a neighborhood against the wishes of its residents.

While that might be true, the momentum is on the side of the housing advocates, politicians (both R and D who support this), developers, and property investors. All these groups are very well-organized. The current residents of the single family neighborhoods may be opposed to the changes by and large, but they are a smaller group compared with the majority of residents who are renters, and they generally approve of the changes.

The governor of Maryland couldn’t even get his modest housing bill passed when it included changes in SFH zoning, and a MoCo rep was one of the people who stepped in to amend that silliness out of there because with it the bill didn’t have a chance. It’s not that the YIMBYs are popular, they are just loud and most normal people aren’t paying enough attention to the sausage being made. However, that seems to be changing. People are watching the YIMBYs now.

The category of "people" includes people who are YIMBYs.

And the "MoCo rep" who "stepped in" was asserting local/county control over zoning. “All the local governments have different zoning rules. And so by nature, anytime the state is going to step into zoning, it’s going to generate questions from all of our governments back home. I think a bill like this does take longer,” Moon said. “You’re going to get questions from all parts of the state, from all parties…people want reassurances about how this thing is going to look.”

https://www.marylandmatters.org/2024/03/29/moores-last-housing-bill-finally-receives-house-approval-but-with-significant-changes/

Ok, well, good luck sport.

Not exactly batting 1,000.

There is no need to bat 1.000. A small improvement is still an improvement. Every realist knows this, and every housing advocate I know is a realist.

If you perceive all housing advocates as Veruca Salt, well, that's a you problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of tendentious arguments here about cities none of us live in.

You could, instead, just look around DC. Neighborhoods where the housing stock has greatly increased over the past decade or so have gotten a lot more expensive, not less expensive.

Look at Navy Yard. Look at U Street. Look at 14th Street. Look at H Street. Look at Shaw. Look at Logan Circle....

Reasoning from a price change: rookie mistake!

I don't know why everyone decided to replace the word "gentrification" with "upzoning." It's the same thing (and, no, just because you *wish* we could build giant apartment buildings in Georgetown doesn't change that). No one doubted what gentrification did to housing prices, and no one should think the result will be any different just because you've relabeled gentrification as "upzoning."

The reason you don't know why is because it didn't happen. They are different things. There might be upzoning and then gentrification, but gentrification can also happen without upzoning, and guess what? Upzoning can also happen without gentrification.

Uh, sure, in theory. In reality, it basically only happens in ungentrified areas. How else is DC getting so incredibly white? Because developers buy homes from black people and turn them into luxury condos they then sell to white people.

Obviously gentrification only happens in ungentrified areas. How would you go about gentrifying an area that is already gentrified?

DC is currently 38% non-Hispanic white.

What is odd here is that those supporting upzoning generally opposed gentrification. They in reality are the same-changing the character of a neighborhood against the wishes of its residents.

While that might be true, the momentum is on the side of the housing advocates, politicians (both R and D who support this), developers, and property investors. All these groups are very well-organized. The current residents of the single family neighborhoods may be opposed to the changes by and large, but they are a smaller group compared with the majority of residents who are renters, and they generally approve of the changes.

The governor of Maryland couldn’t even get his modest housing bill passed when it included changes in SFH zoning, and a MoCo rep was one of the people who stepped in to amend that silliness out of there because with it the bill didn’t have a chance. It’s not that the YIMBYs are popular, they are just loud and most normal people aren’t paying enough attention to the sausage being made. However, that seems to be changing. People are watching the YIMBYs now.

The category of "people" includes people who are YIMBYs.

And the "MoCo rep" who "stepped in" was asserting local/county control over zoning. “All the local governments have different zoning rules. And so by nature, anytime the state is going to step into zoning, it’s going to generate questions from all of our governments back home. I think a bill like this does take longer,” Moon said. “You’re going to get questions from all parts of the state, from all parties…people want reassurances about how this thing is going to look.”

https://www.marylandmatters.org/2024/03/29/moores-last-housing-bill-finally-receives-house-approval-but-with-significant-changes/

Ok, well, good luck sport.

Not exactly batting 1,000.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of tendentious arguments here about cities none of us live in.

You could, instead, just look around DC. Neighborhoods where the housing stock has greatly increased over the past decade or so have gotten a lot more expensive, not less expensive.

Look at Navy Yard. Look at U Street. Look at 14th Street. Look at H Street. Look at Shaw. Look at Logan Circle....

Reasoning from a price change: rookie mistake!

I don't know why everyone decided to replace the word "gentrification" with "upzoning." It's the same thing (and, no, just because you *wish* we could build giant apartment buildings in Georgetown doesn't change that). No one doubted what gentrification did to housing prices, and no one should think the result will be any different just because you've relabeled gentrification as "upzoning."

The reason you don't know why is because it didn't happen. They are different things. There might be upzoning and then gentrification, but gentrification can also happen without upzoning, and guess what? Upzoning can also happen without gentrification.

Uh, sure, in theory. In reality, it basically only happens in ungentrified areas. How else is DC getting so incredibly white? Because developers buy homes from black people and turn them into luxury condos they then sell to white people.

Obviously gentrification only happens in ungentrified areas. How would you go about gentrifying an area that is already gentrified?

DC is currently 38% non-Hispanic white.

What is odd here is that those supporting upzoning generally opposed gentrification. They in reality are the same-changing the character of a neighborhood against the wishes of its residents.

While that might be true, the momentum is on the side of the housing advocates, politicians (both R and D who support this), developers, and property investors. All these groups are very well-organized. The current residents of the single family neighborhoods may be opposed to the changes by and large, but they are a smaller group compared with the majority of residents who are renters, and they generally approve of the changes.

The governor of Maryland couldn’t even get his modest housing bill passed when it included changes in SFH zoning, and a MoCo rep was one of the people who stepped in to amend that silliness out of there because with it the bill didn’t have a chance. It’s not that the YIMBYs are popular, they are just loud and most normal people aren’t paying enough attention to the sausage being made. However, that seems to be changing. People are watching the YIMBYs now.

The category of "people" includes people who are YIMBYs.

And the "MoCo rep" who "stepped in" was asserting local/county control over zoning. “All the local governments have different zoning rules. And so by nature, anytime the state is going to step into zoning, it’s going to generate questions from all of our governments back home. I think a bill like this does take longer,” Moon said. “You’re going to get questions from all parts of the state, from all parties…people want reassurances about how this thing is going to look.”

https://www.marylandmatters.org/2024/03/29/moores-last-housing-bill-finally-receives-house-approval-but-with-significant-changes/

That was 100% a loss for YIMBYs, according to the YIMBYs, as said by the YIMBYs. Someone from MOCO had to step in to make sure that local control was maintained because the bill was DOA with the SFH zoning changes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of tendentious arguments here about cities none of us live in.

You could, instead, just look around DC. Neighborhoods where the housing stock has greatly increased over the past decade or so have gotten a lot more expensive, not less expensive.

Look at Navy Yard. Look at U Street. Look at 14th Street. Look at H Street. Look at Shaw. Look at Logan Circle....

Reasoning from a price change: rookie mistake!

I don't know why everyone decided to replace the word "gentrification" with "upzoning." It's the same thing (and, no, just because you *wish* we could build giant apartment buildings in Georgetown doesn't change that). No one doubted what gentrification did to housing prices, and no one should think the result will be any different just because you've relabeled gentrification as "upzoning."

The reason you don't know why is because it didn't happen. They are different things. There might be upzoning and then gentrification, but gentrification can also happen without upzoning, and guess what? Upzoning can also happen without gentrification.

Uh, sure, in theory. In reality, it basically only happens in ungentrified areas. How else is DC getting so incredibly white? Because developers buy homes from black people and turn them into luxury condos they then sell to white people.

Obviously gentrification only happens in ungentrified areas. How would you go about gentrifying an area that is already gentrified?

DC is currently 38% non-Hispanic white.

What is odd here is that those supporting upzoning generally opposed gentrification. They in reality are the same-changing the character of a neighborhood against the wishes of its residents.

While that might be true, the momentum is on the side of the housing advocates, politicians (both R and D who support this), developers, and property investors. All these groups are very well-organized. The current residents of the single family neighborhoods may be opposed to the changes by and large, but they are a smaller group compared with the majority of residents who are renters, and they generally approve of the changes.

I disagree that the residents and homeowners who are against these zoning reforms are usually the smaller groups; they are less organized than the YIMBYs. Most people have jobs and family responsibilities so they cannot devote a bunch time to advocating against local zoning changes they disagree with. The economic benefits that accrue to the groups advocating for these zoning reforms are much more concentrated than the costs imposed on county residents opposed to the reforms. There is an asymmetric advantage for special interest groups (real estate industry, developers, construction companies) that provides them with greater financial return on advocating for zoning reforms even though they are largely unpopular with the general public. There is generally an asymmetric advantage to lobbying that favors special interest groups over voters' preferences.

Eh. The people who advocate FOR the local zoning changes also have jobs and family responsibilities. For as much as you want to think this is an issue of special interest groups vs. the general public - it's just not true.

According to what data? Do you have some polling that supports this?

Seems pretty fringe to me, and the YIMBYs do a terrible job of selling the idea because they mostly come off as such petulant little Veruca Salts.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/oct/02/rise-of-the-yimbys-angry-millennials-radical-housing-solution

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/07/yimby-california-social-justice-kahlenberg/674714/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of tendentious arguments here about cities none of us live in.

You could, instead, just look around DC. Neighborhoods where the housing stock has greatly increased over the past decade or so have gotten a lot more expensive, not less expensive.

Look at Navy Yard. Look at U Street. Look at 14th Street. Look at H Street. Look at Shaw. Look at Logan Circle....

Reasoning from a price change: rookie mistake!

I don't know why everyone decided to replace the word "gentrification" with "upzoning." It's the same thing (and, no, just because you *wish* we could build giant apartment buildings in Georgetown doesn't change that). No one doubted what gentrification did to housing prices, and no one should think the result will be any different just because you've relabeled gentrification as "upzoning."

The reason you don't know why is because it didn't happen. They are different things. There might be upzoning and then gentrification, but gentrification can also happen without upzoning, and guess what? Upzoning can also happen without gentrification.

Uh, sure, in theory. In reality, it basically only happens in ungentrified areas. How else is DC getting so incredibly white? Because developers buy homes from black people and turn them into luxury condos they then sell to white people.

Obviously gentrification only happens in ungentrified areas. How would you go about gentrifying an area that is already gentrified?

DC is currently 38% non-Hispanic white.

What is odd here is that those supporting upzoning generally opposed gentrification. They in reality are the same-changing the character of a neighborhood against the wishes of its residents.

While that might be true, the momentum is on the side of the housing advocates, politicians (both R and D who support this), developers, and property investors. All these groups are very well-organized. The current residents of the single family neighborhoods may be opposed to the changes by and large, but they are a smaller group compared with the majority of residents who are renters, and they generally approve of the changes.

The governor of Maryland couldn’t even get his modest housing bill passed when it included changes in SFH zoning, and a MoCo rep was one of the people who stepped in to amend that silliness out of there because with it the bill didn’t have a chance. It’s not that the YIMBYs are popular, they are just loud and most normal people aren’t paying enough attention to the sausage being made. However, that seems to be changing. People are watching the YIMBYs now.

The category of "people" includes people who are YIMBYs.

And the "MoCo rep" who "stepped in" was asserting local/county control over zoning. “All the local governments have different zoning rules. And so by nature, anytime the state is going to step into zoning, it’s going to generate questions from all of our governments back home. I think a bill like this does take longer,” Moon said. “You’re going to get questions from all parts of the state, from all parties…people want reassurances about how this thing is going to look.”

https://www.marylandmatters.org/2024/03/29/moores-last-housing-bill-finally-receives-house-approval-but-with-significant-changes/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of tendentious arguments here about cities none of us live in.

You could, instead, just look around DC. Neighborhoods where the housing stock has greatly increased over the past decade or so have gotten a lot more expensive, not less expensive.

Look at Navy Yard. Look at U Street. Look at 14th Street. Look at H Street. Look at Shaw. Look at Logan Circle....

Reasoning from a price change: rookie mistake!

I don't know why everyone decided to replace the word "gentrification" with "upzoning." It's the same thing (and, no, just because you *wish* we could build giant apartment buildings in Georgetown doesn't change that). No one doubted what gentrification did to housing prices, and no one should think the result will be any different just because you've relabeled gentrification as "upzoning."

The reason you don't know why is because it didn't happen. They are different things. There might be upzoning and then gentrification, but gentrification can also happen without upzoning, and guess what? Upzoning can also happen without gentrification.

Uh, sure, in theory. In reality, it basically only happens in ungentrified areas. How else is DC getting so incredibly white? Because developers buy homes from black people and turn them into luxury condos they then sell to white people.

Obviously gentrification only happens in ungentrified areas. How would you go about gentrifying an area that is already gentrified?

DC is currently 38% non-Hispanic white.

What is odd here is that those supporting upzoning generally opposed gentrification. They in reality are the same-changing the character of a neighborhood against the wishes of its residents.

While that might be true, the momentum is on the side of the housing advocates, politicians (both R and D who support this), developers, and property investors. All these groups are very well-organized. The current residents of the single family neighborhoods may be opposed to the changes by and large, but they are a smaller group compared with the majority of residents who are renters, and they generally approve of the changes.

The governor of Maryland couldn’t even get his modest housing bill passed when it included changes in SFH zoning, and a MoCo rep was one of the people who stepped in to amend that silliness out of there because with it the bill didn’t have a chance. It’s not that the YIMBYs are popular, they are just loud and most normal people aren’t paying enough attention to the sausage being made. However, that seems to be changing. People are watching the YIMBYs now.

The category of "people" includes people who are YIMBYs.

And the "MoCo rep" who "stepped in" was asserting local/county control over zoning. “All the local governments have different zoning rules. And so by nature, anytime the state is going to step into zoning, it’s going to generate questions from all of our governments back home. I think a bill like this does take longer,” Moon said. “You’re going to get questions from all parts of the state, from all parties…people want reassurances about how this thing is going to look.”

https://www.marylandmatters.org/2024/03/29/moores-last-housing-bill-finally-receives-house-approval-but-with-significant-changes/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of tendentious arguments here about cities none of us live in.

You could, instead, just look around DC. Neighborhoods where the housing stock has greatly increased over the past decade or so have gotten a lot more expensive, not less expensive.

Look at Navy Yard. Look at U Street. Look at 14th Street. Look at H Street. Look at Shaw. Look at Logan Circle....

Reasoning from a price change: rookie mistake!

I don't know why everyone decided to replace the word "gentrification" with "upzoning." It's the same thing (and, no, just because you *wish* we could build giant apartment buildings in Georgetown doesn't change that). No one doubted what gentrification did to housing prices, and no one should think the result will be any different just because you've relabeled gentrification as "upzoning."

The reason you don't know why is because it didn't happen. They are different things. There might be upzoning and then gentrification, but gentrification can also happen without upzoning, and guess what? Upzoning can also happen without gentrification.

Uh, sure, in theory. In reality, it basically only happens in ungentrified areas. How else is DC getting so incredibly white? Because developers buy homes from black people and turn them into luxury condos they then sell to white people.

Obviously gentrification only happens in ungentrified areas. How would you go about gentrifying an area that is already gentrified?

DC is currently 38% non-Hispanic white.

What is odd here is that those supporting upzoning generally opposed gentrification. They in reality are the same-changing the character of a neighborhood against the wishes of its residents.

While that might be true, the momentum is on the side of the housing advocates, politicians (both R and D who support this), developers, and property investors. All these groups are very well-organized. The current residents of the single family neighborhoods may be opposed to the changes by and large, but they are a smaller group compared with the majority of residents who are renters, and they generally approve of the changes.

I disagree that the residents and homeowners who are against these zoning reforms are usually the smaller groups; they are less organized than the YIMBYs. Most people have jobs and family responsibilities so they cannot devote a bunch time to advocating against local zoning changes they disagree with. The economic benefits that accrue to the groups advocating for these zoning reforms are much more concentrated than the costs imposed on county residents opposed to the reforms. There is an asymmetric advantage for special interest groups (real estate industry, developers, construction companies) that provides them with greater financial return on advocating for zoning reforms even though they are largely unpopular with the general public. There is generally an asymmetric advantage to lobbying that favors special interest groups over voters' preferences.

Eh. The people who advocate FOR the local zoning changes also have jobs and family responsibilities. For as much as you want to think this is an issue of special interest groups vs. the general public - it's just not true.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of tendentious arguments here about cities none of us live in.

You could, instead, just look around DC. Neighborhoods where the housing stock has greatly increased over the past decade or so have gotten a lot more expensive, not less expensive.

Look at Navy Yard. Look at U Street. Look at 14th Street. Look at H Street. Look at Shaw. Look at Logan Circle....

Reasoning from a price change: rookie mistake!

I don't know why everyone decided to replace the word "gentrification" with "upzoning." It's the same thing (and, no, just because you *wish* we could build giant apartment buildings in Georgetown doesn't change that). No one doubted what gentrification did to housing prices, and no one should think the result will be any different just because you've relabeled gentrification as "upzoning."

The reason you don't know why is because it didn't happen. They are different things. There might be upzoning and then gentrification, but gentrification can also happen without upzoning, and guess what? Upzoning can also happen without gentrification.

Uh, sure, in theory. In reality, it basically only happens in ungentrified areas. How else is DC getting so incredibly white? Because developers buy homes from black people and turn them into luxury condos they then sell to white people.

Obviously gentrification only happens in ungentrified areas. How would you go about gentrifying an area that is already gentrified?

DC is currently 38% non-Hispanic white.

What is odd here is that those supporting upzoning generally opposed gentrification. They in reality are the same-changing the character of a neighborhood against the wishes of its residents.

While that might be true, the momentum is on the side of the housing advocates, politicians (both R and D who support this), developers, and property investors. All these groups are very well-organized. The current residents of the single family neighborhoods may be opposed to the changes by and large, but they are a smaller group compared with the majority of residents who are renters, and they generally approve of the changes.

The governor of Maryland couldn’t even get his modest housing bill passed when it included changes in SFH zoning, and a MoCo rep was one of the people who stepped in to amend that silliness out of there because with it the bill didn’t have a chance. It’s not that the YIMBYs are popular, they are just loud and most normal people aren’t paying enough attention to the sausage being made. However, that seems to be changing. People are watching the YIMBYs now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of tendentious arguments here about cities none of us live in.

You could, instead, just look around DC. Neighborhoods where the housing stock has greatly increased over the past decade or so have gotten a lot more expensive, not less expensive.

Look at Navy Yard. Look at U Street. Look at 14th Street. Look at H Street. Look at Shaw. Look at Logan Circle....

Reasoning from a price change: rookie mistake!

I don't know why everyone decided to replace the word "gentrification" with "upzoning." It's the same thing (and, no, just because you *wish* we could build giant apartment buildings in Georgetown doesn't change that). No one doubted what gentrification did to housing prices, and no one should think the result will be any different just because you've relabeled gentrification as "upzoning."

The reason you don't know why is because it didn't happen. They are different things. There might be upzoning and then gentrification, but gentrification can also happen without upzoning, and guess what? Upzoning can also happen without gentrification.

Uh, sure, in theory. In reality, it basically only happens in ungentrified areas. How else is DC getting so incredibly white? Because developers buy homes from black people and turn them into luxury condos they then sell to white people.

Obviously gentrification only happens in ungentrified areas. How would you go about gentrifying an area that is already gentrified?

DC is currently 38% non-Hispanic white.

What is odd here is that those supporting upzoning generally opposed gentrification. They in reality are the same-changing the character of a neighborhood against the wishes of its residents.

While that might be true, the momentum is on the side of the housing advocates, politicians (both R and D who support this), developers, and property investors. All these groups are very well-organized. The current residents of the single family neighborhoods may be opposed to the changes by and large, but they are a smaller group compared with the majority of residents who are renters, and they generally approve of the changes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The unwritten story here is that these buildings with a small number of condos will turn into disasters for the condo owners. The idea that these small condo associations will be managed well is zero. Disputes will arise. Finances will be poor. Basic maintenance will be ignored. Condo owners will make no money on them. I would never advise anyone, including my children, to buy one. The only people that will profit will be the developers and other real estate professionals.

The primary purpose of housing is housing. Not profit.

And nobody is forcing you to buy a condo in a building with a small number of condos.

Lets get real. The older condos in the inner MD burbs have made little money over the last several decades. Condos are not good investments.