Anonymous wrote:
There is no height restriction in VA and some parts of DC, or am I missing something? Why aren't we seeing all these apartments being built if there is such demand?

Why are we not seeing many families living in DC apartments even though they had existed for decades and are still cheaper overall than SFH/TH living?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not everyone can live in DuPont Circle. Sorry!

Exactly, all I see is anguish that someone cannot afford the type of housing or neighborhood for the same price as where they have to resort to living now, obviously not satisfied with their options. I don't see millions descending upon DC in search of homes and whoever lives here or comes and goes seems to find place to live according to the budget. My working class family managed to buy homes in South Arlington and Silver Spring and further out burbs to get nicer homes, they are not rich or even professionals. My wealthier friends all own decent homes in NWDC, Mclean, Bethesda, GF, Clarendon. My poor cousin lives in a garden apartment zoned for Longfellow, because that's all she can afford and because she is dead set on her kid going there, but she is not homeless and doesn't have to resort to living in unsafe area. My DINK friends rent a luxury condo in trendy part of DC and my disabled low income relative lives in an apartment in NWDC. Where is the crisis other than people with LMC budget wanting to live UMC lifestyle?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole debate boils down to the frustrated expectations of 30-year old white guys.

It's always some guy who moved to Washington from Pennsylvania. Back home, he grew up in a big house in a nice neighborhood. His parents made a lot of money. He studied hard and went to a good school and then moved here.

But he went into a profession that pays peanuts and he realized he's never going to be able to afford a place like where he grew up. He has champagne taste and a beer budget. Now he is lobbying politicians to fix everything for him, to make things more like they were back home. He wants them to change the zoning laws to create more units so that he can live in neighborhoods he'd otherwise never be able to afford and so he doesn't have to have long commutes or worry about crime. All the people worried about shady real estate developers and overcrowded schools and disappearing green space and ugly condo developments can take a hike.

You want to know what white privilege looks like? This is what white privilege looks like.

it's really mostly liberal male urban planners who are perplexed why the real world doesn't work like their utopian urban planning textbooks

David Albert having a SFH in the city make their heads explode too

We restrict supply, we get high prices. Works exactly like my econ textbooks said.

And there is nothing wrong with a person buying a SFH in the city. Its pushing for policies that privilege that, or otherwise interfere with good solutions, that is the problem. Its about policies, not about private choices.

Also the attacks on individuals, esp on DA, here in an anon forum, are repulsive.

Actually economists say adding to the housing stock would not reduce prices (things are more complicated than you suggest). For example, here is a paper by Federal Reserve economists: https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2018035pap.pdf

Anonymous wrote:Not everyone can live in DuPont Circle. Sorry!

Anonymous wrote:

Actually economists say adding to the housing stock would not reduce prices (things are more complicated than you suggest). For example, here is a paper by Federal Reserve economists: https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2018035pap.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

You make it sound like most people prefer to live in 30-story towers and it's all by choice and that's how most of the world lives.

Most people, given a choice of a brand new 3000 sq foot unit in a hirise, and the same 3000 sq foot unit on the ground (no elevator trip needed) and with their own yard, all in the same location would prefer the latter sure (though a few would prefer the view).

But its banal.

Life is full of tradeoffs. Tradeoffs on location - which include both commute length, commute mode options, access to amenities, etc. And age and quality of units.

In DC (this is a DC area forum, and OP asked about DC) the tradeoffs are significant enough that MANY people take the multifamily choice. Not only in the District, but in the inner suburbs as well, and some do further out (new pricey high rise apts in Tysons appear to be doing pretty well).

Some upper middle class families with school age kids even pick them - in DC west of the park, in North Arlington, and in Falls Church, most notably.

More people would pick them if they were not as expenive as they are. They would be less expensive if there were fewer constraints on constructing them. Given that that would expand the range of choices to people, and ALSO benefit society, we should, as far as possible, relax those constraints.

I am not sure what problem you have with the above. You can go on with abstract discussions of human nature, or granular discussions of migration patterns from NYC, but they do not change what I have said above.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
An area is expensive because lots of people want to live there. Some people get shut out because of the prices are too high. If you create more housing in the area -- enough to actually affect the prices -- more people will show up to buy them, including all those people who had been shut out. That will bid up prices. So prices won't actually go down -- this might go up beyond what they would have otherwise been, and you'll just have more people all trying to live in the same area.

So lets say the amount of housing in the District doubled. Instead of housing for 750k people you have housing for 1.5 million. Lets say prices/rents for apts/condos drop by 5%.

Are there 750k people currently living in the rest of the metro area who would move to DC (to apts/condos) because its now 5% cheaper than it was? I mean lots of people living in the suburbs work in the suburbs, and are going to need a huge discount to reverse commute. Some work in DC, but don't want to live in a condo or apt.

Maybe there are 750k people who live in the suburbs, who either already live in apts/condos or would be interested in doing so, and who work in DC. But even among those, there are plenty who just like the suburbs more.

Now maybe if rents/prices went down by 20%. you would get more. That only shows there are limits to the rent/price decrease. Its VERY unlikely there would be no price decrease - because that implies all the new units would be filled even if prices/rents only went down by one percent say.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole debate boils down to the frustrated expectations of 30-year old white guys.

It's always some guy who moved to Washington from Pennsylvania. Back home, he grew up in a big house in a nice neighborhood. His parents made a lot of money. He studied hard and went to a good school and then moved here.

But he went into a profession that pays peanuts and he realized he's never going to be able to afford a place like where he grew up. He has champagne taste and a beer budget. Now he is lobbying politicians to fix everything for him, to make things more like they were back home. He wants them to change the zoning laws to create more units so that he can live in neighborhoods he'd otherwise never be able to afford and so he doesn't have to have long commutes or worry about crime. All the people worried about shady real estate developers and overcrowded schools and disappearing green space and ugly condo developments can take a hike.

You want to know what white privilege looks like? This is what white privilege looks like.

it's really mostly liberal male urban planners who are perplexed why the real world doesn't work like their utopian urban planning textbooks

David Albert having a SFH in the city make their heads explode too

We restrict supply, we get high prices. Works exactly like my econ textbooks said.

And there is nothing wrong with a person buying a SFH in the city. Its pushing for policies that privilege that, or otherwise interfere with good solutions, that is the problem. Its about policies, not about private choices.

Also the attacks on individuals, esp on DA, here in an anon forum, are repulsive.