Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are three-bedroom apartments that are more difficult to rent. They are great for families, lots of fun. We had a house in the suburbs, the kids rarely played in the yard. I don’t get why people think raising kids in an apartment is such a tragedy.

Our kids would play in the backyard all day everyday if they could. They want to go out there when it's 10 degrees. They want to go out there when it's 110 degrees. No one gets more use out of backyards than children.

You have some unique kids for this millennium. We never used our yard when we were kids. I bought a house with a big yard and the kids never wanted to go out there and play. They jump on a trampoline, there's a soccer field a 2 minute walk away, and they ride their bikes in the street. I filled in my current townhome backyard with rocks so I don't have to deal with it. Count me among the people that view a yard as just one more thing to maintain. Glad your kids enjoy the yard, though.

I don’t think so. All their friends love playing outside too. I think the issue here is that you are lying about having kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are three-bedroom apartments that are more difficult to rent. They are great for families, lots of fun. We had a house in the suburbs, the kids rarely played in the yard. I don’t get why people think raising kids in an apartment is such a tragedy.

Our kids would play in the backyard all day everyday if they could. They want to go out there when it's 10 degrees. They want to go out there when it's 110 degrees. No one gets more use out of backyards than children.

You have some unique kids for this millennium. We never used our yard when we were kids. I bought a house with a big yard and the kids never wanted to go out there and play. They jump on a trampoline, there's a soccer field a 2 minute walk away, and they ride their bikes in the street. I filled in my current townhome backyard with rocks so I don't have to deal with it. Count me among the people that view a yard as just one more thing to maintain. Glad your kids enjoy the yard, though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are three-bedroom apartments that are more difficult to rent. They are great for families, lots of fun. We had a house in the suburbs, the kids rarely played in the yard. I don’t get why people think raising kids in an apartment is such a tragedy.

Our kids would play in the backyard all day everyday if they could. They want to go out there when it's 10 degrees. They want to go out there when it's 110 degrees. No one gets more use out of backyards than children.

Anonymous wrote:There are three-bedroom apartments that are more difficult to rent. They are great for families, lots of fun. We had a house in the suburbs, the kids rarely played in the yard. I don’t get why people think raising kids in an apartment is such a tragedy.

Anonymous wrote:There are three-bedroom apartments that are more difficult to rent. They are great for families, lots of fun. We had a house in the suburbs, the kids rarely played in the yard. I don’t get why people think raising kids in an apartment is such a tragedy.

Anonymous wrote:There are three-bedroom apartments that are more difficult to rent. They are great for families, lots of fun. We had a house in the suburbs, the kids rarely played in the yard. I don’t get why people think raising kids in an apartment is such a tragedy.

Anonymous wrote:There are three-bedroom apartments that are more difficult to rent. They are great for families, lots of fun. We had a house in the suburbs, the kids rarely played in the yard. I don’t get why people think raising kids in an apartment is such a tragedy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"My pod is your pod". Doesnt have the same ring to it.
Just finished a long article about why NY, SF etc. Need more modest single family homes. Which is exactly what DC has in Tenleytown , AU Park etc and causes developers and the Mayor to gnash and foam.

Wait what? The homes in AU park maybe modest but their outrageous prices are pretty compelling evidence of how much of a housing crises we have. But maybe you don't have kids and don't want them to be able to afford DC and prefer we becoming another San Francisco where no one can afford to live?

Anonymous wrote:"My pod is your pod". Doesnt have the same ring to it.
Just finished a long article about why NY, SF etc. Need more modest single family homes. Which is exactly what DC has in Tenleytown , AU Park etc and causes developers and the Mayor to gnash and foam.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Changing single-family-detached house zoning will not help people who were formerly homeless and earn too much for transitional housing.

It will help lots of other people, though.

So let's do change single-family-detached house zoning AND increase the supply of housing affordable for people who earn too much for transitional housing and need permanent housing.

Changing single-family-detached house zoning will not help poor people. Or middle-income people. And it will actively hurt anyone with children. But it might help single white dudes who really want to live in neighborhoods they otherwise could not afford.

Please, let's think of the single white dudes, for once. They really, really want to live close to the bar.

That's silly, PP. When there are more housing units in areas where people want to live, then more people can live in those areas. Of course that will help middle-income people, people with children, and middle-income people with children. There's no divine decree that children must live in detached houses.

There's a life cycle to housing.

People who are young and single don't need much space. When people get married, they don't need much more space, though they'd probably like some. When people have children, now they need space. If they have a lot of children, they really need a lot of space. When those children grow up and move away, they don't need as much space anymore.

Replacing single-family homes with apartments and condos helps people who 1. don't have children or 2. whose children have grown up and moved away because it will make apartments and condos cheaper. It hurts people with children, because they need lots of space, and removing single-family homes will send the price of the ones that remain to the moon. Why do you think so many people leave NYC when they have children? (Look at how much single-family homes cost in NYC).

You can say "well those people can lump it and go live in a condo." (It's always easier to demand someone else sacrifices, isn't it? Especially when you benefit from their sacrifices)

And I can say "well, no one has a divine decree to live anywhere, and if you don't like DC, you're welcome to move somewhere else."

+1.

This is an issue in a lot of places. See here:

"In Seattle, even before you get to the paramount parental question of schools, the question of housing looms large for families. There’s just not enough of it to go around. There’s lots of new construction, but it’s coming at the expense of single-family homes, which until recently were a Seattle staple. It might be great for a certain stage of life, but most people don’t want to raise their kids in microapartments -- sometimes called “apodments” in Seattle -- above cocktail bars or e-cig lounges. “It keeps dollars per square foot up, so it makes perfect financial sense,” says Tyler McKenzie, president of the Seattle King County Association of Realtors, “but it’s going to drive families away.”

https://www.governing.com/topics/urban/gov-seattle-kids-gentrification-series.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The houses are charming 1920s houses though. Such a shame. My prediction is that developers would raze them and build mcmansions (still for single family) that fill the lots with little squiggles of green between. Kind of like that neighborhood by Foxhall.

I can't imagine a lot of circumstances where a boulder wouldn't make more money replacing 1 unit with 2 units (or 3 or 4) - if it were allowed, and if the demand is there. And the demand is there.

Why are builders knocking down colonials and building McMansions all across Bethesda/Chevy Chase?

Because single-family-detached houses are all that they're allowed to build. They're not allowed to build duplexes (or triplexes or fourplexes). The current zoning forbids it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Changing single-family-detached house zoning will not help people who were formerly homeless and earn too much for transitional housing.

It will help lots of other people, though.

So let's do change single-family-detached house zoning AND increase the supply of housing affordable for people who earn too much for transitional housing and need permanent housing.

Changing single-family-detached house zoning will not help poor people. Or middle-income people. And it will actively hurt anyone with children. But it might help single white dudes who really want to live in neighborhoods they otherwise could not afford.

Please, let's think of the single white dudes, for once. They really, really want to live close to the bar.

That's silly, PP. When there are more housing units in areas where people want to live, then more people can live in those areas. Of course that will help middle-income people, people with children, and middle-income people with children. There's no divine decree that children must live in detached houses.

There's a life cycle to housing.

People who are young and single don't need much space. When people get married, they don't need much more space, though they'd probably like some. When people have children, now they need space. If they have a lot of children, they really need a lot of space. When those children grow up and move away, they don't need as much space anymore.

Replacing single-family homes with apartments and condos helps people who 1. don't have children or 2. whose children have grown up and moved away because it will make apartments and condos cheaper. It hurts people with children, because they need lots of space, and removing single-family homes will send the price of the ones that remain to the moon. Why do you think so many people leave NYC when they have children? (Look at how much single-family homes cost in NYC).

You can say "well those people can lump it and go live in a condo." (It's always easier to demand someone else sacrifices, isn't it? Especially when you benefit from their sacrifices)

And I can say "well, no one has a divine decree to live anywhere, and if you don't like DC, you're welcome to move somewhere else."

+1.

This is an issue in a lot of places. See here:

"In Seattle, even before you get to the paramount parental question of schools, the question of housing looms large for families. There’s just not enough of it to go around. There’s lots of new construction, but it’s coming at the expense of single-family homes, which until recently were a Seattle staple. It might be great for a certain stage of life, but most people don’t want to raise their kids in microapartments -- sometimes called “apodments” in Seattle -- above cocktail bars or e-cig lounges. “It keeps dollars per square foot up, so it makes perfect financial sense,” says Tyler McKenzie, president of the Seattle King County Association of Realtors, “but it’s going to drive families away.”

https://www.governing.com/topics/urban/gov-seattle-kids-gentrification-series.html