I don't know what the smart growth crowd wants. But if its affordable housing, SGC is going to have to convince the government to subsidize construction costs. The price of land, existing homes, labor, materials makes building in this area very expensive. You can't buy an empty lot in DC for less than $1,000,000.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Racist outcomes? That makes no sense. Based on your logic, expensive restaurants are racist because certain people go there? Seriously, think about what you are saying for 2 seconds. Systemic racism is a thing. That doesn't mean we should throw our hands up and do nothing. There will be demographic differences in literally everything we do. Using that as a shield to prop up property values and exclude people is wrong.

At the end of the the day, SFH zoning is the most discriminatory thing. The history of it, and why it continues, is exactly that.

If you think expensive restaurants and de facto segregated neighborhoods are even remotely close to the same thing, you will never understand why your policies are terrible for society. I'd love to see more land opened up for multifamily, but without a concerted, deliberate effort to regulate the housing market, spend subsidies more wisely, and bring more jobs to job-deficient areas, we'll end up with more segregation and discrimination, not less.

Yes, I do. SFH is segregation. Urbanists wish to undo that discriminatory part of zoning. NIMBYs and "affordable housing" advocates do not.

No "affordable housing" plan, or supporter, has made rent come down. It's only about handouts to a few poor people (inclusionary zoning) or a few apartments scattered here and there. It's virtue signaling. It doesn't work.

Bethesda has at least 3 high end apt buildings coming on line this year and you can bet (or check if you want) that is having an effect on rents across the area— buildings that were a few years ago are offering rents under $2k with a couple months free.

Likewise the fact that developers might build new developments in phases doesn’t change the fact that in 2030, or whenever they are done, the presence of those houses will keep prices lower than they would have been otherwise. It’s strange to suggest otherwise.

Repeat after me: Developers build when there’s sufficient additional demand at 100 to 120 percent AMI to absorb more units. So, sure, housing will remain affordable in that range, but filtering never really happens unless developers overshoot demand. People below 100 percent are out of luck. We can play games with counterfactuals, but prices hit a ceiling when ownership becomes price competitive with renting and because there’s finite demand at each price point.

As for the three high-end Bethesda buildings, all of them downsized after construction started and at least one of them is going to be heavy on short-term rentals.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Until the US becomes a socialist or communist nation, there will be huge differences in housing opportunity. That's how capitalism works.

The smart growth crowd could also be accused of racism. The kind of affordable housing they talk about is available in other sections of the city. But they want to live in Tenleytown and Friendship Heights. I wonder why.

I agree with "the smart growth crowd," and I live in Tenleytown in a house I own. I want more affordable housing built near me -- affordable housing which I will not benefit from, because, as I said, I already live here. The idea that this is all just a way for 30something single dudes to get into this neighborhood is silly (for one, why would you want to live in this neighborhood as a single dude?).

“I want my neighborhood to be economically less desirable”

Why would a few affordable housing units make a neighborhood less desirable?

So you only want a few low income neighbors? What’s your limit? Why do you have a limit? What’s wrong with living near low income people that you don’t want to live near too many of them?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Until the US becomes a socialist or communist nation, there will be huge differences in housing opportunity. That's how capitalism works.

The smart growth crowd could also be accused of racism. The kind of affordable housing they talk about is available in other sections of the city. But they want to live in Tenleytown and Friendship Heights. I wonder why.

I agree with "the smart growth crowd," and I live in Tenleytown in a house I own. I want more affordable housing built near me -- affordable housing which I will not benefit from, because, as I said, I already live here. The idea that this is all just a way for 30something single dudes to get into this neighborhood is silly (for one, why would you want to live in this neighborhood as a single dude?).

“I want my neighborhood to be economically less desirable”

Why would a few affordable housing units make a neighborhood less desirable?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Until the US becomes a socialist or communist nation, there will be huge differences in housing opportunity. That's how capitalism works.

The smart growth crowd could also be accused of racism. The kind of affordable housing they talk about is available in other sections of the city. But they want to live in Tenleytown and Friendship Heights. I wonder why.

I agree with "the smart growth crowd," and I live in Tenleytown in a house I own. I want more affordable housing built near me -- affordable housing which I will not benefit from, because, as I said, I already live here. The idea that this is all just a way for 30something single dudes to get into this neighborhood is silly (for one, why would you want to live in this neighborhood as a single dude?).

Because "single dudes" in their 30s are grown ups? So they buy properties and places to live?

Anonymous wrote:Increasing density doesn't necessarily push housing prices down. It can. But it can also push them up. It depends on the situation.

Look at Navy Yard. It's far more densely populated than it was ten years ago. But it's also far more expensive than it used to be. That's because all those condos and apartments create a lot of potential customers for businesses so lots of restaurants and bars move in, which makes the area more attractive to some people (read: young people), which creates a lot more demand for housing, which pushes housing prices up (15 years ago, not many people wanted to live in Navy Yard).

Now, if you moved all the condos and apartments in Navy Yard to Cedar Rapids, Iowa, housing prices there would crash because there wouldn't be enough people to fill them.

Sure, but this is a facile analysis. The explosive growth in housing production in Navy Yard took pressure off of other submarkets. How much more expensive would Dupont or Logan or Capitol Hill be but for the new construction in Navy Yard?

Increasing density doesn't necessarily push housing prices down. It can. But it can also push them up. It depends on the situation.

Look at Navy Yard. It's far more densely populated than it was ten years ago. But it's also far more expensive than it used to be. That's because all those condos and apartments create a lot of potential customers for businesses so lots of restaurants and bars move in, which makes the area more attractive to some people (read: young people), which creates a lot more demand for housing, which pushes housing prices up (15 years ago, not many people wanted to live in Navy Yard).

Now, if you moved all the condos and apartments in Navy Yard to Cedar Rapids, Iowa, housing prices there would crash because there wouldn't be enough people to fill them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Racist outcomes? That makes no sense. Based on your logic, expensive restaurants are racist because certain people go there? Seriously, think about what you are saying for 2 seconds. Systemic racism is a thing. That doesn't mean we should throw our hands up and do nothing. There will be demographic differences in literally everything we do. Using that as a shield to prop up property values and exclude people is wrong.

At the end of the the day, SFH zoning is the most discriminatory thing. The history of it, and why it continues, is exactly that.

If you think expensive restaurants and de facto segregated neighborhoods are even remotely close to the same thing, you will never understand why your policies are terrible for society. I'd love to see more land opened up for multifamily, but without a concerted, deliberate effort to regulate the housing market, spend subsidies more wisely, and bring more jobs to job-deficient areas, we'll end up with more segregation and discrimination, not less.

Yes, I do. SFH is segregation. Urbanists wish to undo that discriminatory part of zoning. NIMBYs and "affordable housing" advocates do not.

No "affordable housing" plan, or supporter, has made rent come down. It's only about handouts to a few poor people (inclusionary zoning) or a few apartments scattered here and there. It's virtue signaling. It doesn't work.

Bethesda has at least 3 high end apt buildings coming on line this year and you can bet (or check if you want) that is having an effect on rents across the area— buildings that were a few years ago are offering rents under $2k with a couple months free.

Likewise the fact that developers might build new developments in phases doesn’t change the fact that in 2030, or whenever they are done, the presence of those houses will keep prices lower than they would have been otherwise. It’s strange to suggest otherwise.

Yep. This is well-established in the literature. People who claim otherwise are doing so out of ignorance.

Yes, and having more dense development helps keep commutes shorter or at least less likely to involve long car rides. Additionally, less land gets eaten up in exurbs when the market is allowed to create additional housing units in the city. NIMBYs who are against changing houses into condos are short-sighted and selfish. And often racist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Racist outcomes? That makes no sense. Based on your logic, expensive restaurants are racist because certain people go there? Seriously, think about what you are saying for 2 seconds. Systemic racism is a thing. That doesn't mean we should throw our hands up and do nothing. There will be demographic differences in literally everything we do. Using that as a shield to prop up property values and exclude people is wrong.

At the end of the the day, SFH zoning is the most discriminatory thing. The history of it, and why it continues, is exactly that.

If you think expensive restaurants and de facto segregated neighborhoods are even remotely close to the same thing, you will never understand why your policies are terrible for society. I'd love to see more land opened up for multifamily, but without a concerted, deliberate effort to regulate the housing market, spend subsidies more wisely, and bring more jobs to job-deficient areas, we'll end up with more segregation and discrimination, not less.

Yes, I do. SFH is segregation. Urbanists wish to undo that discriminatory part of zoning. NIMBYs and "affordable housing" advocates do not.

No "affordable housing" plan, or supporter, has made rent come down. It's only about handouts to a few poor people (inclusionary zoning) or a few apartments scattered here and there. It's virtue signaling. It doesn't work.

Bethesda has at least 3 high end apt buildings coming on line this year and you can bet (or check if you want) that is having an effect on rents across the area— buildings that were a few years ago are offering rents under $2k with a couple months free.

Likewise the fact that developers might build new developments in phases doesn’t change the fact that in 2030, or whenever they are done, the presence of those houses will keep prices lower than they would have been otherwise. It’s strange to suggest otherwise.

Yep. This is well-established in the literature. People who claim otherwise are doing so out of ignorance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Racist outcomes? That makes no sense. Based on your logic, expensive restaurants are racist because certain people go there? Seriously, think about what you are saying for 2 seconds. Systemic racism is a thing. That doesn't mean we should throw our hands up and do nothing. There will be demographic differences in literally everything we do. Using that as a shield to prop up property values and exclude people is wrong.

At the end of the the day, SFH zoning is the most discriminatory thing. The history of it, and why it continues, is exactly that.

If you think expensive restaurants and de facto segregated neighborhoods are even remotely close to the same thing, you will never understand why your policies are terrible for society. I'd love to see more land opened up for multifamily, but without a concerted, deliberate effort to regulate the housing market, spend subsidies more wisely, and bring more jobs to job-deficient areas, we'll end up with more segregation and discrimination, not less.

Yes, I do. SFH is segregation. Urbanists wish to undo that discriminatory part of zoning. NIMBYs and "affordable housing" advocates do not.

No "affordable housing" plan, or supporter, has made rent come down. It's only about handouts to a few poor people (inclusionary zoning) or a few apartments scattered here and there. It's virtue signaling. It doesn't work.

Bethesda has at least 3 high end apt buildings coming on line this year and you can bet (or check if you want) that is having an effect on rents across the area— buildings that were a few years ago are offering rents under $2k with a couple months free.

Likewise the fact that developers might build new developments in phases doesn’t change the fact that in 2030, or whenever they are done, the presence of those houses will keep prices lower than they would have been otherwise. It’s strange to suggest otherwise.

Anonymous wrote:I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Can you proviso some examples of what you are referring to?

Basically a new word for Yuppie. Professionals who live in cities and post about their meals etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Until the US becomes a socialist or communist nation, there will be huge differences in housing opportunity. That's how capitalism works.

The smart growth crowd could also be accused of racism. The kind of affordable housing they talk about is available in other sections of the city. But they want to live in Tenleytown and Friendship Heights. I wonder why.

I agree with "the smart growth crowd," and I live in Tenleytown in a house I own. I want more affordable housing built near me -- affordable housing which I will not benefit from, because, as I said, I already live here. The idea that this is all just a way for 30something single dudes to get into this neighborhood is silly (for one, why would you want to live in this neighborhood as a single dude?).

“I want my neighborhood to be economically less desirable”

Anonymous wrote:Until the US becomes a socialist or communist nation, there will be huge differences in housing opportunity. That's how capitalism works.

The smart growth crowd could also be accused of racism. The kind of affordable housing they talk about is available in other sections of the city. But they want to live in Tenleytown and Friendship Heights. I wonder why.

I agree with "the smart growth crowd," and I live in Tenleytown in a house I own. I want more affordable housing built near me -- affordable housing which I will not benefit from, because, as I said, I already live here. The idea that this is all just a way for 30something single dudes to get into this neighborhood is silly (for one, why would you want to live in this neighborhood as a single dude?).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Let's build more housing, because land around here is expensive, because many people want to live here for jobs, amenities, and more".

"BuT iT's NoT AfForDAble hOusiNG! ItS LUXURY!"

"Are you willing to sell your home for 500k under market value to a poor family?"

"........"

No one would expect urbanist policies to result in affordable housing if you didn't promise affordable housing. At the end of the day, the conversation always lands with some version of it's not fair to expect developers to deliver affordable housing. The urbanist paradigm is simply cruel in the way it dangles the promise of shelter and diverse neighborhoods but never delivers it.

If you open a grocery store, should you be forced to sell 10% of your food at a loss because people are poor?

If you voted for Biden or Northam you should be forced to do this, yes. That’s what you voted for. Subsidies founded on the backs of small business owners and entrepreneurs. An ebbing tide grounds all boats.

So how do you rationalize subsidies given to billionaires, oil companies, auto companies, farmers/agri-business etc? Which set of subsidies cost more? And, no one is taking away from small businesses. The subsidies are given to consumers for them to spent AT the small businesses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Let's build more housing, because land around here is expensive, because many people want to live here for jobs, amenities, and more".

"BuT iT's NoT AfForDAble hOusiNG! ItS LUXURY!"

"Are you willing to sell your home for 500k under market value to a poor family?"

"........"

No one would expect urbanist policies to result in affordable housing if you didn't promise affordable housing. At the end of the day, the conversation always lands with some version of it's not fair to expect developers to deliver affordable housing. The urbanist paradigm is simply cruel in the way it dangles the promise of shelter and diverse neighborhoods but never delivers it.

If you open a grocery store, should you be forced to sell 10% of your food at a loss because people are poor?

No. that is why there is SNAP.