Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of hand wringing over nothing. Let the market work it's magic - you'll see shrinking office footprints for individual organizations, a consolidation of office space, and conversion to residential.

For example, office buildings closest to Dupont Circle and Mass Ave are prime candidates for conversion to residential given their proximity to other residential neighborhoods & amenities. If some of those are converted, existing office tenants will consolidate in more traditional office areas (K St, Metro Center).

It's going to take a couple years for all of this to shake out. But it will happen. DC still has a shortage of residential units by tens of thousands of units. This city's housing supply has not kept up with demand.

Once vaccines are available for kids, we will see a return to office. My prediction is January 2022 people start returning in large numbers for a few days per week.

Yesterday's Post article confused me, TBH. Its said residents who can telework are moving out of the city in droves for a variety of reasons including cost of living and personal security. Then it said the city will use this to convert offices to downtown residences. But it sounds like offices AND residents are leaving. Who is going to live there? Will they be subsidized/part of the affordbale housing plan? People with means are not clamoring for DC condos right now.

Those who moved out of the city is not a massive tsunami, IMHO. A lot of it was families who would've moved eventually. And even with the real decline in population, its still nowhere near enough to make up for the deficit in housing units that DC needs.

What's hurting DC right now is the fact that the city did not have two years' worth of interns and recent graduates move to DC for entry level jobs. That's tens of thousands of new residents who didn't show up to rent apartments or houses.

A lot is in flux right now. DC will bounce back similar to NYC, but it will just take longer. And I predict it will coincide with the mass vaccination of children. Neither my spouse nor I are eager to jump back to our offices while our kid is unvaccinated.

What difference will vaccination of children make? Kids are at minuscule risk from Covid - it is far less dangerous than the flu for them. Covid is endemic now and it’s not going away, so we as a society will have to decide if that means permanent remote work or not. As we have all seen over the past two years, white collar work can be done remote

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of hand wringing over nothing. Let the market work it's magic - you'll see shrinking office footprints for individual organizations, a consolidation of office space, and conversion to residential.

For example, office buildings closest to Dupont Circle and Mass Ave are prime candidates for conversion to residential given their proximity to other residential neighborhoods & amenities. If some of those are converted, existing office tenants will consolidate in more traditional office areas (K St, Metro Center).

It's going to take a couple years for all of this to shake out. But it will happen. DC still has a shortage of residential units by tens of thousands of units. This city's housing supply has not kept up with demand.

Once vaccines are available for kids, we will see a return to office. My prediction is January 2022 people start returning in large numbers for a few days per week.

Yesterday's Post article confused me, TBH. Its said residents who can telework are moving out of the city in droves for a variety of reasons including cost of living and personal security. Then it said the city will use this to convert offices to downtown residences. But it sounds like offices AND residents are leaving. Who is going to live there? Will they be subsidized/part of the affordbale housing plan? People with means are not clamoring for DC condos right now.

Those who moved out of the city is not a massive tsunami, IMHO. A lot of it was families who would've moved eventually. And even with the real decline in population, its still nowhere near enough to make up for the deficit in housing units that DC needs.

What's hurting DC right now is the fact that the city did not have two years' worth of interns and recent graduates move to DC for entry level jobs. That's tens of thousands of new residents who didn't show up to rent apartments or houses.

A lot is in flux right now. DC will bounce back similar to NYC, but it will just take longer. And I predict it will coincide with the mass vaccination of children. Neither my spouse nor I are eager to jump back to our offices while our kid is unvaccinated.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Moving the focus from SC politics back to Washington, DC. What the article points out is how DC officials refused requests to look at how COVID was challenging assumptions about DC population growth, commercial office demand commuting patterns, car use, etc. when the Bowser Admin was ramming the Comprehensive Plan amendments through the DC Council. The amendments included increases in density and height under the Future Land Use Map in a variety of DC neighborhoods. Now that the pro-developer, deregulatory changes have been enacted, the DC government finally DC acknowledging that its assumptions were a bit... inaccurate. Population growth was slowing, and last year reversed. Personal vehicle registrations in DC are way up, as residents rethought public transit use. Office space demand has fallen off, as DC now looks to encourage office to residential conversions. Real estate demand for single family homes with at least a small yard has skyrocketed, while demand for new condos and upmarket rents has fallen.

I don't especially agree with this line of reasoning, but suppose that it's true that the District is looking less attractive because of COVID and WFH. What is the Bowser administration supposed to do about it? The District has very little available land, which would only support a tiny number of new single family homes, so the city really can't compete on that ground anyway.

If commercial property tax revenue (and sales tax from office worker lunches) falls dramatically, then the city will need to make up the difference in some other way. Most of those options involve either taxing existing residents more, which could cause more people to leave, or attracting more residents, especially ones who make relatively little use of expensive city services. It seems to me that if WFH makes the city less attractive for some people, the city's best move is to play to it's comparative advantage and double down on attracting the subset of folks who still want to be in a city environment for reasons other than the location of their jobs.

But, like I said, I'm not that keen on this line of reasoning. Most of the entertainment and commercial areas are feeling pretty active to me lately. Obviously there are fewer people in restaurants and more outside, and other signs that not all people feel safe with all activities just yet. The office-driven parts of downtown are still pretty quiet. But in general, people seem anxious to return to the same activities that they used to enjoy. I just don't see this kind of contagion where large numbers of people suddenly decide that they don't like the activities that the city has to offer after all.

You started off with a factually untrue statement which people like you like to ignore. The RFK site is a massive area of undeveloped land where a whole new neighborhood of row houses could be built.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By your own admissions, 3000 rowhouses!

But apparently there is no place left to build SFH in DC?!?!

Dumb.

3,000 rowhouses is barely a drop in the bucket. Do you know how many housing units are in DC?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I remember this very well. https://twitter.com/TomLynch_/status/1267281828060282887

Soon after the "protestors" lit St. John's on fire too. The next day was when Trump forcibly moved the protestors and did that disgusting photo op in front of St. John's. And then only a few months later we had the Capitol Hill riot. Possibly the most shameful day for America I've witnessed in my life.

Different groups, obviously. But that makes it more dangerous, as now you have the real possibility of violent riots from several parts of the political spectrum. This could very well happen in DC again in 2024, if not sooner. The pandemic hit DC hard, but social unrest is a looming threat for DC too.

I think we're probably looking at President Nikki Haley in Jan. 2025. Not sure whether this will lead to protests on either side, or social unrest.

Anonymous wrote:By your own admissions, 3000 rowhouses!

But apparently there is no place left to build SFH in DC?!?!

Dumb.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Moving the focus from SC politics back to Washington, DC. What the article points out is how DC officials refused requests to look at how COVID was challenging assumptions about DC population growth, commercial office demand commuting patterns, car use, etc. when the Bowser Admin was ramming the Comprehensive Plan amendments through the DC Council. The amendments included increases in density and height under the Future Land Use Map in a variety of DC neighborhoods. Now that the pro-developer, deregulatory changes have been enacted, the DC government finally DC acknowledging that its assumptions were a bit... inaccurate. Population growth was slowing, and last year reversed. Personal vehicle registrations in DC are way up, as residents rethought public transit use. Office space demand has fallen off, as DC now looks to encourage office to residential conversions. Real estate demand for single family homes with at least a small yard has skyrocketed, while demand for new condos and upmarket rents has fallen.

I don't especially agree with this line of reasoning, but suppose that it's true that the District is looking less attractive because of COVID and WFH. What is the Bowser administration supposed to do about it? The District has very little available land, which would only support a tiny number of new single family homes, so the city really can't compete on that ground anyway.

If commercial property tax revenue (and sales tax from office worker lunches) falls dramatically, then the city will need to make up the difference in some other way. Most of those options involve either taxing existing residents more, which could cause more people to leave, or attracting more residents, especially ones who make relatively little use of expensive city services. It seems to me that if WFH makes the city less attractive for some people, the city's best move is to play to it's comparative advantage and double down on attracting the subset of folks who still want to be in a city environment for reasons other than the location of their jobs.

But, like I said, I'm not that keen on this line of reasoning. Most of the entertainment and commercial areas are feeling pretty active to me lately. Obviously there are fewer people in restaurants and more outside, and other signs that not all people feel safe with all activities just yet. The office-driven parts of downtown are still pretty quiet. But in general, people seem anxious to return to the same activities that they used to enjoy. I just don't see this kind of contagion where large numbers of people suddenly decide that they don't like the activities that the city has to offer after all.

You started off with a factually untrue statement which people like you like to ignore. The RFK site is a massive area of undeveloped land where a whole new neighborhood of row houses could be built.

The RFK site is 190 acres, or about 0.3 square miles according to the redevelopment study I found. At rowhouse neighborhood densities, that would hold 5-6000 people. At the average population growth rate of the last 10 years, that buys us maybe 8-9 months of growth and would make up less than 1% of the city's population when it was complete. Certainly not enough to transform the city or its growth path. At apartment block densities, that buys us more like 2 years, which is better, but we're not going to keep coming up with sites this size every 2 years for long.

I love rowhouses, and I live in one. It's a great life that I would love for more people to have. But as long as we have a height restriction that binds through basically all of the downtown area, we can't build new apartment housing densely enough to satisfy the demand for apartment living and justify building new rowhouses so close to downtown. Building apartments also helps to protect the existing rowhouse stock from becoming a sea of hideous pop-ups and condo splits. If you want more people to be able to live the rowhouse life, you should focus your energy on relaxing the height restriction (to take the pressure off of scarce available land) and improving transit access and urban planning in the places where it's actually reasonable to build at a townhouse/rowhouse density (mostly in closer-in suburbs).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Moving the focus from SC politics back to Washington, DC. What the article points out is how DC officials refused requests to look at how COVID was challenging assumptions about DC population growth, commercial office demand commuting patterns, car use, etc. when the Bowser Admin was ramming the Comprehensive Plan amendments through the DC Council. The amendments included increases in density and height under the Future Land Use Map in a variety of DC neighborhoods. Now that the pro-developer, deregulatory changes have been enacted, the DC government finally DC acknowledging that its assumptions were a bit... inaccurate. Population growth was slowing, and last year reversed. Personal vehicle registrations in DC are way up, as residents rethought public transit use. Office space demand has fallen off, as DC now looks to encourage office to residential conversions. Real estate demand for single family homes with at least a small yard has skyrocketed, while demand for new condos and upmarket rents has fallen.

I don't especially agree with this line of reasoning, but suppose that it's true that the District is looking less attractive because of COVID and WFH. What is the Bowser administration supposed to do about it? The District has very little available land, which would only support a tiny number of new single family homes, so the city really can't compete on that ground anyway.

If commercial property tax revenue (and sales tax from office worker lunches) falls dramatically, then the city will need to make up the difference in some other way. Most of those options involve either taxing existing residents more, which could cause more people to leave, or attracting more residents, especially ones who make relatively little use of expensive city services. It seems to me that if WFH makes the city less attractive for some people, the city's best move is to play to it's comparative advantage and double down on attracting the subset of folks who still want to be in a city environment for reasons other than the location of their jobs.

But, like I said, I'm not that keen on this line of reasoning. Most of the entertainment and commercial areas are feeling pretty active to me lately. Obviously there are fewer people in restaurants and more outside, and other signs that not all people feel safe with all activities just yet. The office-driven parts of downtown are still pretty quiet. But in general, people seem anxious to return to the same activities that they used to enjoy. I just don't see this kind of contagion where large numbers of people suddenly decide that they don't like the activities that the city has to offer after all.

You started off with a factually untrue statement which people like you like to ignore. The RFK site is a massive area of undeveloped land where a whole new neighborhood of row houses could be built.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Moving the focus from SC politics back to Washington, DC. What the article points out is how DC officials refused requests to look at how COVID was challenging assumptions about DC population growth, commercial office demand commuting patterns, car use, etc. when the Bowser Admin was ramming the Comprehensive Plan amendments through the DC Council. The amendments included increases in density and height under the Future Land Use Map in a variety of DC neighborhoods. Now that the pro-developer, deregulatory changes have been enacted, the DC government finally DC acknowledging that its assumptions were a bit... inaccurate. Population growth was slowing, and last year reversed. Personal vehicle registrations in DC are way up, as residents rethought public transit use. Office space demand has fallen off, as DC now looks to encourage office to residential conversions. Real estate demand for single family homes with at least a small yard has skyrocketed, while demand for new condos and upmarket rents has fallen.

I don't especially agree with this line of reasoning, but suppose that it's true that the District is looking less attractive because of COVID and WFH. What is the Bowser administration supposed to do about it? The District has very little available land, which would only support a tiny number of new single family homes, so the city really can't compete on that ground anyway.

If commercial property tax revenue (and sales tax from office worker lunches) falls dramatically, then the city will need to make up the difference in some other way. Most of those options involve either taxing existing residents more, which could cause more people to leave, or attracting more residents, especially ones who make relatively little use of expensive city services. It seems to me that if WFH makes the city less attractive for some people, the city's best move is to play to it's comparative advantage and double down on attracting the subset of folks who still want to be in a city environment for reasons other than the location of their jobs.

But, like I said, I'm not that keen on this line of reasoning. Most of the entertainment and commercial areas are feeling pretty active to me lately. Obviously there are fewer people in restaurants and more outside, and other signs that not all people feel safe with all activities just yet. The office-driven parts of downtown are still pretty quiet. But in general, people seem anxious to return to the same activities that they used to enjoy. I just don't see this kind of contagion where large numbers of people suddenly decide that they don't like the activities that the city has to offer after all.

Anonymous wrote:Moving the focus from SC politics back to Washington, DC. What the article points out is how DC officials refused requests to look at how COVID was challenging assumptions about DC population growth, commercial office demand commuting patterns, car use, etc. when the Bowser Admin was ramming the Comprehensive Plan amendments through the DC Council. The amendments included increases in density and height under the Future Land Use Map in a variety of DC neighborhoods. Now that the pro-developer, deregulatory changes have been enacted, the DC government finally DC acknowledging that its assumptions were a bit... inaccurate. Population growth was slowing, and last year reversed. Personal vehicle registrations in DC are way up, as residents rethought public transit use. Office space demand has fallen off, as DC now looks to encourage office to residential conversions. Real estate demand for single family homes with at least a small yard has skyrocketed, while demand for new condos and upmarket rents has fallen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I remember this very well. https://twitter.com/TomLynch_/status/1267281828060282887

Soon after the "protestors" lit St. John's on fire too. The next day was when Trump forcibly moved the protestors and did that disgusting photo op in front of St. John's. And then only a few months later we had the Capitol Hill riot. Possibly the most shameful day for America I've witnessed in my life.

Different groups, obviously. But that makes it more dangerous, as now you have the real possibility of violent riots from several parts of the political spectrum. This could very well happen in DC again in 2024, if not sooner. The pandemic hit DC hard, but social unrest is a looming threat for DC too.

I think we're probably looking at President Nikki Haley in Jan. 2025. Not sure whether this will lead to protests on either side, or social unrest.

No one is going to vote for a fake jat sikh.

Trumpets won’t vote for her and Punjabis won’t vote for her either.

Wasn't she elected Governor of South Carolina twice? Obviously someone, including so-called Trumpets, will vote for her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I remember this very well. https://twitter.com/TomLynch_/status/1267281828060282887

Soon after the "protestors" lit St. John's on fire too. The next day was when Trump forcibly moved the protestors and did that disgusting photo op in front of St. John's. And then only a few months later we had the Capitol Hill riot. Possibly the most shameful day for America I've witnessed in my life.

Different groups, obviously. But that makes it more dangerous, as now you have the real possibility of violent riots from several parts of the political spectrum. This could very well happen in DC again in 2024, if not sooner. The pandemic hit DC hard, but social unrest is a looming threat for DC too.

I think we're probably looking at President Nikki Haley in Jan. 2025. Not sure whether this will lead to protests on either side, or social unrest.

No one is going to vote for a fake jat sikh.

Trumpets won’t vote for her and Punjabis won’t vote for her either.