Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's going to be a field day for developers. Can't wait for beauties like this to get built, except in townhouse form:

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/5449-20th-St-N-Arlington-VA-22205/12067525_zpid/?mmlb=g,0

I don't get it. If a developer tears down a nondescript brick ranch house built by a developer, and replaces it with an ugly one-unit new residential building, that's ok, but if a developer tears down a nondescript brick ranch house built by a developer, and replaces it with an ugly two-unit new residential building, that's bad? More developers will tear down more nondescript brick ranch houses built by developers, leading to more ugly new residential buildings of up to 4 (or 6) units? What, specifically, is the issue?

The issue - at its core - is that whiny, entitled homeowners are upset that they can't encase their neighborhood in amber.

Since you can't reason people out of a position they didn't reason themselves into, 'debates' on housing policy in Arlington are largely fruitless endeavors. All the facts in the world won't disabuse these fecklessly angry people of their notion that their cause is righteous and true.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right at this moment, I truly hate Arlington. We chose to live here, raised a family here, have devoted so much time to this community. Between how they handled COVID and this, I am so mad. I could never live in a red state, but I am finding that it's pretty awful to live in the land of only blue.

You'll eventually realize that the concept you know of a red state is a myth, and you will gladly move.

LOL. PP from above. I grew up in a red state and the people there are crazy. I mean it when I say I could not go back. I was so smug and happy to live in blue Arlington when Trump got elected because at least people were sane here. Then COVID happened. And then I saw my nieces and nephews going to school while my kids stayed home. And now I see my neighborhood getting even more crowded, and I look at the house next door that is going to be a 6-plex soon. I literally fought DH to make him stay here and now the joke's on me, it was the wrong call.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about as a thought experiment we see if the net effect of this is to raise or lower the price of houses in Arlington? My bet is on raising. Tearing down a 900K house and building three 1.1 million townhomes does not solve an affordability crisis. Plus the price of land just jumped considerably.

Also for fun, will this make Arlington more or less diverse? My bet is on less.

Oh sure, it is well known that when you increase the supply of something, the price goes up.

Wait, what?

What you are missing is the old Arlington real estate market is now dead. Every single lot in Arlington just got a lot more $$$. Before you could build one house. Now you can build 6. Some lots will now be worth double what they were before. Wait and see. This is not going to make the market more affordable.

So the number of housing units that can be put on a lot will increase sixfold, while the price of the lot only doubles, but that won't make more units more affordable for more people? Huh.

Listen. Anything 4 and above is likely to be an apartment. The money to be made here is duplexes and townhomes which will sell on a unit basis. I did the math for you before, but I'll try again. Right now there is a lot in Lyon Park that sold for $900K. A developer is going to build three townhomes on it for $1.1 million each. (And make a killing, by the way, but that same lot will now sell for $1.5.) So you replace one unit that cost $900K with three units that cost $1.1 million. Cost per unit goes up. That's the math.

No, the math is the cost of a single McMansion on the lot, times the odds that the existing house would be turned into a McMansion under previous zoning. I don’t know why NIMBYs keep ignoring this. The status quo isn’t that every older house gets bought by a family who wants to live there. It’s that a hundred seventy older houses that could be candidates for missing middle, get turned into McMansions instead.

Exactly.

But I’d rather have a McMansion next to me than a 8-plex with all the loss of parking and additional school overcrowding that entails. I don’t understand the point you’re making…

Good news, 8-plexes aren't allowed! So now you don't have to worry about someone building one next door to you, or selling your property to someone to put an 8-plex on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about as a thought experiment we see if the net effect of this is to raise or lower the price of houses in Arlington? My bet is on raising. Tearing down a 900K house and building three 1.1 million townhomes does not solve an affordability crisis. Plus the price of land just jumped considerably.

Also for fun, will this make Arlington more or less diverse? My bet is on less.

Oh sure, it is well known that when you increase the supply of something, the price goes up.

Wait, what?

Fool, dropping 100 units on the market tomorrow wouldn't drop prices 2%.

This isn't about supply. This is about broke f.u.c.ks wanting to live in N. Arlington on a pre school teacher's salaries.

In a county with 120,000 units, currently? That would indeed be unlikely.

Also, what is wrong with preschool teachers living in North Arlington? People in North Arlington have children who go to preschools. Where should the teachers for those preschools live?

Uhhhhh, they should live where they can afford to live[/b]. Pre school teachers don't have sufficient salary to qualify for jumbo mortgages.

Do you own islands in the Caribbean?

Why not?

Unlike the supply of islands in the Caribbean, the supply of housing in North Arlington is not finite. It is possible to increase the supply of housing in North Arlington. And the Arlington County Board of Supervisors just voted to make that possible. Hooray!

Hooray for your ignorance. You clearly don't know what 'finite' means.

It is not possible to increase the number of islands in the Caribbean. Therefore, the supply of islands in the Caribbean is finite.

It is possible to increase the number of housing units in North Arlington. Therefore, the supply of housing in North Arlington is not finite.

NP. Eventually you will run out of places to put new housing units. Thus .... finite.

It's possible to build multi-story buildings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about as a thought experiment we see if the net effect of this is to raise or lower the price of houses in Arlington? My bet is on raising. Tearing down a 900K house and building three 1.1 million townhomes does not solve an affordability crisis. Plus the price of land just jumped considerably.

Also for fun, will this make Arlington more or less diverse? My bet is on less.

Oh sure, it is well known that when you increase the supply of something, the price goes up.

Wait, what?

Fool, dropping 100 units on the market tomorrow wouldn't drop prices 2%.

This isn't about supply. This is about broke f.u.c.ks wanting to live in N. Arlington on a pre school teacher's salaries.

In a county with 120,000 units, currently? That would indeed be unlikely.

Also, what is wrong with preschool teachers living in North Arlington? People in North Arlington have children who go to preschools. Where should the teachers for those preschools live?

Uhhhhh, they should live where they can afford to live[/b]. Pre school teachers don't have sufficient salary to qualify for jumbo mortgages.

Do you own islands in the Caribbean?

Why not?

Unlike the supply of islands in the Caribbean, the supply of housing in North Arlington is not finite. It is possible to increase the supply of housing in North Arlington. And the Arlington County Board of Supervisors just voted to make that possible. Hooray!

Hooray for your ignorance. You clearly don't know what 'finite' means.

It is not possible to increase the number of islands in the Caribbean. Therefore, the supply of islands in the Caribbean is finite.

It is possible to increase the number of housing units in North Arlington. Therefore, the supply of housing in North Arlington is not finite.

NP. Eventually you will run out of places to put new housing units. Thus .... finite.

Anonymous wrote:Right at this moment, I truly hate Arlington. We chose to live here, raised a family here, have devoted so much time to this community. Between how they handled COVID and this, I am so mad. I could never live in a red state, but I am finding that it's pretty awful to live in the land of only blue.

You'll eventually realize that the concept you know of a red state is a myth, and you will gladly move.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about as a thought experiment we see if the net effect of this is to raise or lower the price of houses in Arlington? My bet is on raising. Tearing down a 900K house and building three 1.1 million townhomes does not solve an affordability crisis. Plus the price of land just jumped considerably.

Also for fun, will this make Arlington more or less diverse? My bet is on less.

Oh sure, it is well known that when you increase the supply of something, the price goes up.

Wait, what?

What you are missing is the old Arlington real estate market is now dead. Every single lot in Arlington just got a lot more $$$. Before you could build one house. Now you can build 6. Some lots will now be worth double what they were before. Wait and see. This is not going to make the market more affordable.

So the number of housing units that can be put on a lot will increase sixfold, while the price of the lot only doubles, but that won't make more units more affordable for more people? Huh.

Listen. Anything 4 and above is likely to be an apartment. The money to be made here is duplexes and townhomes which will sell on a unit basis. I did the math for you before, but I'll try again. Right now there is a lot in Lyon Park that sold for $900K. A developer is going to build three townhomes on it for $1.1 million each. (And make a killing, by the way, but that same lot will now sell for $1.5.) So you replace one unit that cost $900K with three units that cost $1.1 million. Cost per unit goes up. That's the math.

No, the math is the cost of a single McMansion on the lot, times the odds that the existing house would be turned into a McMansion under previous zoning. I don’t know why NIMBYs keep ignoring this. The status quo isn’t that every older house gets bought by a family who wants to live there. It’s that a hundred seventy older houses that could be candidates for missing middle, get turned into McMansions instead.

Exactly.

But I’d rather have a McMansion next to me than a 8-plex with all the loss of parking and additional school overcrowding that entails. I don’t understand the point you’re making…

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about as a thought experiment we see if the net effect of this is to raise or lower the price of houses in Arlington? My bet is on raising. Tearing down a 900K house and building three 1.1 million townhomes does not solve an affordability crisis. Plus the price of land just jumped considerably.

Also for fun, will this make Arlington more or less diverse? My bet is on less.

Oh sure, it is well known that when you increase the supply of something, the price goes up.

Wait, what?

What you are missing is the old Arlington real estate market is now dead. Every single lot in Arlington just got a lot more $$$. Before you could build one house. Now you can build 6. Some lots will now be worth double what they were before. Wait and see. This is not going to make the market more affordable.

So the number of housing units that can be put on a lot will increase sixfold, while the price of the lot only doubles, but that won't make more units more affordable for more people? Huh.

Listen. Anything 4 and above is likely to be an apartment. The money to be made here is duplexes and townhomes which will sell on a unit basis. I did the math for you before, but I'll try again. Right now there is a lot in Lyon Park that sold for $900K. A developer is going to build three townhomes on it for $1.1 million each. (And make a killing, by the way, but that same lot will now sell for $1.5.) So you replace one unit that cost $900K with three units that cost $1.1 million. Cost per unit goes up. That's the math.

No, the math is the cost of a single McMansion on the lot, times the odds that the existing house would be turned into a McMansion under previous zoning. I don’t know why NIMBYs keep ignoring this. The status quo isn’t that every older house gets bought by a family who wants to live there. It’s that a hundred seventy older houses that could be candidates for missing middle, get turned into McMansions instead.

Exactly.

Anonymous wrote:It's going to be a field day for developers. Can't wait for beauties like this to get built, except in townhouse form:

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/5449-20th-St-N-Arlington-VA-22205/12067525_zpid/?mmlb=g,0

It already is a field day for developers!

Anonymous wrote:It's going to be a field day for developers. Can't wait for beauties like this to get built, except in townhouse form:

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/5449-20th-St-N-Arlington-VA-22205/12067525_zpid/?mmlb=g,0

Good god why is that front door off center from the portico?

Anonymous wrote:It's going to be a field day for developers. Can't wait for beauties like this to get built, except in townhouse form:

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/5449-20th-St-N-Arlington-VA-22205/12067525_zpid/?mmlb=g,0

I don't get it. If a developer tears down a nondescript brick ranch house built by a developer, and replaces it with an ugly one-unit new residential building, that's ok, but if a developer tears down a nondescript brick ranch house built by a developer, and replaces it with an ugly two-unit new residential building, that's bad? More developers will tear down more nondescript brick ranch houses built by developers, leading to more ugly new residential buildings of up to 4 (or 6) units? What, specifically, is the issue?

It's going to be a field day for developers. Can't wait for beauties like this to get built, except in townhouse form:

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/5449-20th-St-N-Arlington-VA-22205/12067525_zpid/?mmlb=g,0

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about as a thought experiment we see if the net effect of this is to raise or lower the price of houses in Arlington? My bet is on raising. Tearing down a 900K house and building three 1.1 million townhomes does not solve an affordability crisis. Plus the price of land just jumped considerably.

Also for fun, will this make Arlington more or less diverse? My bet is on less.

Oh sure, it is well known that when you increase the supply of something, the price goes up.

Wait, what?

What you are missing is the old Arlington real estate market is now dead. Every single lot in Arlington just got a lot more $$$. Before you could build one house. Now you can build 6. Some lots will now be worth double what they were before. Wait and see. This is not going to make the market more affordable.

So the number of housing units that can be put on a lot will increase sixfold, while the price of the lot only doubles, but that won't make more units more affordable for more people? Huh.

Listen. Anything 4 and above is likely to be an apartment. The money to be made here is duplexes and townhomes which will sell on a unit basis. I did the math for you before, but I'll try again. Right now there is a lot in Lyon Park that sold for $900K. A developer is going to build three townhomes on it for $1.1 million each. (And make a killing, by the way, but that same lot will now sell for $1.5.) So you replace one unit that cost $900K with three units that cost $1.1 million. Cost per unit goes up. That's the math.

No, the math is the cost of a single McMansion on the lot, times the odds that the existing house would be turned into a McMansion under previous zoning. I don’t know why NIMBYs keep ignoring this. The status quo isn’t that every older house gets bought by a family who wants to live there. It’s that a hundred seventy older houses that could be candidates for missing middle, get turned into McMansions instead.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know exactly what will get built in Arlington but the duplexes in a place like Vancouver are gorgeous and way more attractive than the crappy new single-family houses currently getting built in Arlington.

Agree, there are lots of beautiful places in other cities… but has the board put any restrictions and safeguards in place?
Or is it all up to the developer now? If so, they won’t care about aesthetics, I’m afraid.

What restrictions and safeguards are there about the aesthetics of McMansions?

Exactly. Check out the monster McMansion being built on Ohio Street across from ATS. Hint: you can't miss it!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about as a thought experiment we see if the net effect of this is to raise or lower the price of houses in Arlington? My bet is on raising. Tearing down a 900K house and building three 1.1 million townhomes does not solve an affordability crisis. Plus the price of land just jumped considerably.

Also for fun, will this make Arlington more or less diverse? My bet is on less.

Oh sure, it is well known that when you increase the supply of something, the price goes up.

Wait, what?

What you are missing is the old Arlington real estate market is now dead. Every single lot in Arlington just got a lot more $$$. Before you could build one house. Now you can build 6. Some lots will now be worth double what they were before. Wait and see. This is not going to make the market more affordable.

I really wonder if this will be the case. In my eyes it could go either way. And that’s terrifying for homeowners. This should have been on a ballot. I’m not sure the county did its due diligence. Has the CB put ANY restrictions on lots (square footage of x can have only a duplex, etc.)?

It was on the ballot.

It was in the ballot when you voted for the County board.

You got what you voted for.

You reap what you sow 😂😂😂