Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea that increasing density will reduce housing costs is such a weird lie.

Housing in cities has been getting more dense since forever -- no one has ever torn down a condo building in order to make way for a single-family home. It only goes in the other direction.

And yet the most densely populated places in America -- like DC -- are, as always, the most expensive places in America.

What's weird about it? Increasing density increases the supply of housing. Increasing the supply of housing reduces the price of housing. That's basic economics.

The most densely-populated places in America, which are not very densely-populated, are expensive because lots of people want to live there. That's also basic economics. Housing costs are low in Louisa County, Iowa (population density 28 people per square mile) because few people want to live there.

Except increasing density is like cutting taxes for rich people in the (false) hope they will then use those savings to spur the economy. Trickle-down economics never work. and there's a growing amount of scholarship that says the only people who benefit from increased housing density are privileged White people (like, say, the privileged White people who write for GGW).

https://furmancenter.org/files/Supply_Skepticism_-_Final.pdf

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1078087418824672

Naturally, this scholarship is not considered by GGW types who claim (with exactly zero evidence) that housing prices will follow the same rules of supply and demand as, say, bread.

Anonymous wrote:

"Increasing density" is really just gentrification, and gentrification ("increasing density") drives housing prices up.

Because the more people you pack into an area, the more attractive you make it to businesses. Bars, restaurants, boutiques want to be where lots of people are. Once bars, restaurants, boutiques move in, then the area seems more attractive to many people, which increases demand for housing, which drives prices up. That creates more demand for even more housing, which spurs more condo buildings, which attracts more businesses, which makes the area seem more attractive to more people, which increases demand for housing in that area-- and so on and so on.

It's been happening over and over and over across DC.

Nah, dude. Increasing density is just increasing density.

Now, if you want to argue that dense places are attractive places that people and business like, that's fine with me. In that case, we should allow more dense places to be built.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let the market decide. Just because DC allows for denser population near metro does not mean they will be built.

I trust a developer of multifamily buildings to have a better sense of what the market wants that me.

Yes, allowing developers to build multi-family housing near Metro stations if they think the market will support it, is not the same thing as committing the state to build new highways based on overestimates of future car volumes and faulty model assumptions.

LOLOLOL they are not building multi-family housing. They are building more luxury condos for yuppie singletons to move in from the suburbs and add to the glut.

If there's a "glut" of "luxury condos", then they're not luxury condos, no matter what it might say in the ads.

Would it make you happier if it were called multi-household housing?

They are small, expensive units that will bring more singletons into the city (maybe/or maybe the lustre is dimming). They do not improve the affordable housing situation for existing DC residents or families.

How can there be a glut of expensive units? Please explain.

Nah. Youre missing the point which os that there is little argument to be made for building more dense condos budings near metro in DC right now.

OK, so then the builders won't build any. They don't build stuff there's no demand for, because then they can't sell it. There, problem solved.

Don't think it's quite as simple as that.

Why not? Why would builders build something there's no market for?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea that increasing density will reduce housing costs is such a weird lie.

Housing in cities has been getting more dense since forever -- no one has ever torn down a condo building in order to make way for a single-family home. It only goes in the other direction.

And yet the most densely populated places in America -- like DC -- are, as always, the most expensive places in America.

What's weird about it? Increasing density increases the supply of housing. Increasing the supply of housing reduces the price of housing. That's basic economics.

The most densely-populated places in America, which are not very densely-populated, are expensive because lots of people want to live there. That's also basic economics. Housing costs are low in Louisa County, Iowa (population density 28 people per square mile) because few people want to live there.

"Increasing density" is really just gentrification, and gentrification ("increasing density") drives housing prices up.

Because the more people you pack into an area, the more attractive you make it to businesses. Bars, restaurants, boutiques want to be where lots of people are. Once bars, restaurants, boutiques move in, then the area seems more attractive to many people, which increases demand for housing, which drives prices up. That creates more demand for even more housing, which spurs more condo buildings, which attracts more businesses, which makes the area seem more attractive to more people, which increases demand for housing in that area-- and so on and so on.

It's been happening over and over and over across DC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let the market decide. Just because DC allows for denser population near metro does not mean they will be built.

I trust a developer of multifamily buildings to have a better sense of what the market wants that me.

Yes, allowing developers to build multi-family housing near Metro stations if they think the market will support it, is not the same thing as committing the state to build new highways based on overestimates of future car volumes and faulty model assumptions.

LOLOLOL they are not building multi-family housing. They are building more luxury condos for yuppie singletons to move in from the suburbs and add to the glut.

If there's a "glut" of "luxury condos", then they're not luxury condos, no matter what it might say in the ads.

Would it make you happier if it were called multi-household housing?

They are small, expensive units that will bring more singletons into the city (maybe/or maybe the lustre is dimming). They do not improve the affordable housing situation for existing DC residents or families.

How can there be a glut of expensive units? Please explain.

Nah. Youre missing the point which os that there is little argument to be made for building more dense condos budings near metro in DC right now.

OK, so then the builders won't build any. They don't build stuff there's no demand for, because then they can't sell it. There, problem solved.

Don't think it's quite as simple as that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let the market decide. Just because DC allows for denser population near metro does not mean they will be built.

I trust a developer of multifamily buildings to have a better sense of what the market wants that me.

Yes, allowing developers to build multi-family housing near Metro stations if they think the market will support it, is not the same thing as committing the state to build new highways based on overestimates of future car volumes and faulty model assumptions.

LOLOLOL they are not building multi-family housing. They are building more luxury condos for yuppie singletons to move in from the suburbs and add to the glut.

If there's a "glut" of "luxury condos", then they're not luxury condos, no matter what it might say in the ads.

Would it make you happier if it were called multi-household housing?

They are small, expensive units that will bring more singletons into the city (maybe/or maybe the lustre is dimming). They do not improve the affordable housing situation for existing DC residents or families.

How can there be a glut of expensive units? Please explain.

Nah. Youre missing the point which os that there is little argument to be made for building more dense condos budings near metro in DC right now.

OK, so then the builders won't build any. They don't build stuff there's no demand for, because then they can't sell it. There, problem solved.

Anonymous wrote:The idea that increasing density will reduce housing costs is such a weird lie.

Housing in cities has been getting more dense since forever -- no one has ever torn down a condo building in order to make way for a single-family home. It only goes in the other direction.

And yet the most densely populated places in America -- like DC -- are, as always, the most expensive places in America.

What's weird about it? Increasing density increases the supply of housing. Increasing the supply of housing reduces the price of housing. That's basic economics.

The most densely-populated places in America, which are not very densely-populated, are expensive because lots of people want to live there. That's also basic economics. Housing costs are low in Louisa County, Iowa (population density 28 people per square mile) because few people want to live there.

The idea that increasing density will reduce housing costs is such a weird lie.

Housing in cities has been getting more dense since forever -- no one has ever torn down a condo building in order to make way for a single-family home. It only goes in the other direction.

And yet the most densely populated places in America -- like DC -- are, as always, the most expensive places in America.

Prior to the pandemic, hours were cut, waiting times increased, and a variety of construction projects were undertaken. There were often station closures that require passengers to get off the train, transfer to a shuttle bus, get back on the train, and Petra safer to yet another train or bus or buses to complete their trip. So, Metro makes changes that negatively impact customer experiences, the , when riders decrease because of the drop in service, error decided to further decrease services. And all of that was happening BEFORE Covid was a factor. It would be really wonderful if Metro could create a usable system, perhaps with slightly longer wait times, and full length trains. If Metro would consistently provide safe and usable service, they might then find their cohort of reliable riders. I would like to be one of them. But for that, I need nighttime and weekend service.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let the market decide. Just because DC allows for denser population near metro does not mean they will be built.

I trust a developer of multifamily buildings to have a better sense of what the market wants that me.

Yes, allowing developers to build multi-family housing near Metro stations if they think the market will support it, is not the same thing as committing the state to build new highways based on overestimates of future car volumes and faulty model assumptions.

LOLOLOL they are not building multi-family housing. They are building more luxury condos for yuppie singletons to move in from the suburbs and add to the glut.

If there's a "glut" of "luxury condos", then they're not luxury condos, no matter what it might say in the ads.

Would it make you happier if it were called multi-household housing?

They are small, expensive units that will bring more singletons into the city (maybe/or maybe the lustre is dimming). They do not improve the affordable housing situation for existing DC residents or families.

How can there be a glut of expensive units? Please explain.

Nah. Youre missing the point which os that there is little argument to be made for building more dense condos budings near metro in DC right now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let the market decide. Just because DC allows for denser population near metro does not mean they will be built.

I trust a developer of multifamily buildings to have a better sense of what the market wants that me.

Yes, allowing developers to build multi-family housing near Metro stations if they think the market will support it, is not the same thing as committing the state to build new highways based on overestimates of future car volumes and faulty model assumptions.

LOLOLOL they are not building multi-family housing. They are building more luxury condos for yuppie singletons to move in from the suburbs and add to the glut.

If there's a "glut" of "luxury condos", then they're not luxury condos, no matter what it might say in the ads.

Would it make you happier if it were called multi-household housing?

They are small, expensive units that will bring more singletons into the city (maybe/or maybe the lustre is dimming). They do not improve the affordable housing situation for existing DC residents or families.

How can there be a glut of expensive units? Please explain.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let the market decide. Just because DC allows for denser population near metro does not mean they will be built.

I trust a developer of multifamily buildings to have a better sense of what the market wants that me.

Yes, allowing developers to build multi-family housing near Metro stations if they think the market will support it, is not the same thing as committing the state to build new highways based on overestimates of future car volumes and faulty model assumptions.

LOLOLOL they are not building multi-family housing. They are building more luxury condos for yuppie singletons to move in from the suburbs and add to the glut.

If there's a "glut" of "luxury condos", then they're not luxury condos, no matter what it might say in the ads.

Would it make you happier if it were called multi-household housing?

They are small, expensive units that will bring more singletons into the city (maybe/or maybe the lustre is dimming). They do not improve the affordable housing situation for existing DC residents or families.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let the market decide. Just because DC allows for denser population near metro does not mean they will be built.

I trust a developer of multifamily buildings to have a better sense of what the market wants that me.

Yes, allowing developers to build multi-family housing near Metro stations if they think the market will support it, is not the same thing as committing the state to build new highways based on overestimates of future car volumes and faulty model assumptions.

LOLOLOL they are not building multi-family housing. They are building more luxury condos for yuppie singletons to move in from the suburbs and add to the glut.

If there's a "glut" of "luxury condos", then they're not luxury condos, no matter what it might say in the ads.

Would it make you happier if it were called multi-household housing?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bus costs like 1/4 what the metro costs. I couldn't afford metro much when I lived in DC and didn't make much.

No, the disparity is nowhere near that. Metro gets more expensive the farther you travel, but longer trips would be impossible to do by bus.

Density around metro stops farther away makes much more sense than in the city...where we have buses.

???

Density around Metro stops makes sense everywhere.

Not in DC when it appears what people currently would really like is to maintain green space, have single family homes, duplexes, and very small apartment buildings with family sized apartments (not luxury condos) and are happy to have them spread throughout the city on the fantastic bus lines.

"People" who?

Space is at a premium in cities. That's why cities have subways. Meanwhile the "fantastic bus lines" have to compete with cars for road space. If you'd like to convert lots of all-purpose lanes to bus-only lanes, that would speed the buses up considerably.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let the market decide. Just because DC allows for denser population near metro does not mean they will be built.

I trust a developer of multifamily buildings to have a better sense of what the market wants that me.

Yes, allowing developers to build multi-family housing near Metro stations if they think the market will support it, is not the same thing as committing the state to build new highways based on overestimates of future car volumes and faulty model assumptions.

LOLOLOL they are not building multi-family housing. They are building more luxury condos for yuppie singletons to move in from the suburbs and add to the glut.