Anonymous wrote:

100%. The fact that this entire thread ignores the Other Side of the River speaks for itself. DC has plenty of real estate where additional housing can be built, including some commercial space DC does not need to destroy the SFH neighborhoods.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are interested in pushing the Gallery Place/DuPont Circle/Logan Circle density vibe up into CP and Tenleytown and reaping dividends in real estate and development. When you look at their bios and where the Board currently lives, one 16th street Heights, one Kalorama, one Park city - they are total YIMBYS seeking $ opportunity.

How many new condos have been built in DC during the last five years? if that hasn't kept a lid on housing costs, what will? Has a single condo building been turned down? There are hundreds of new condos being built in Cleveland Park as we speak. Despite all that, try to find a house in Upper Caucasia that doesn't cost at least $1 million. Good luck. Upzoning is not going to making housing in the district affordable. The economic forces are much larger - they are nationwide. They are global. Suggesting that upzoning will make housing more affordable in DC is like saying that banning backyard fire pits will decrease global warming in Ward 3. It's just soooooooo dumb. The only thing upzoning will do is give high-end developers more inventory to sell.

Anonymous wrote:They are interested in pushing the Gallery Place/DuPont Circle/Logan Circle density vibe up into CP and Tenleytown and reaping dividends in real estate and development. When you look at their bios and where the Board currently lives, one 16th street Heights, one Kalorama, one Park city - they are total YIMBYS seeking $ opportunity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This country is headed for a demographic cliff over which there will be a glut of homes as the population (at best) stagnates in major urban/job centers and the number of rural ghost towns skyrockets.

You may want to check the latest Census and compare from 10 years ago. The County population is growing at a steady and reasonable pace. So there will be no "demographic cliff". But similarly, there is no "crisis" either indicating that there is a shortage of housing and these claims of having a deficit of 200k homes that you will see people promote as talking points are just nonsense.

Exactly this.

What people want is 200k houses and amazing schools. You want to get the 5 million cottage in mclean for 500k.

Baltimore is 45 minutes away and you can get a rowhome there for under 100k.

If the maglev is approved, you can get to Baltimore in 15 minutes.

You can afford private school when your house is paid for in cash.

The problem with OP is that they want champagne homes but can only afford beer homes. And this was prepandemic.

Move to Baltimore. It’s not as scary as you think it is.

There are really nice homes in anacostia (4 bed, 2 bath, front porch) for 425 K. Surprised that Anacostia hasn't been "discovered" yet by these GGW folks (racism?). Keep telling my husband we should invest.

Implying folks are racist with absolutely 0 evidence. Nice. You must be fun at parties.

I am! The fact that GGW doesn't view Anacostia as prime for "vibrant density" which would be win win for the current residents (the vibrant part, like more supermarkets and improved transit lines) and provide some additional starter home for families housing (shouldn't this be the goal, not one bedroom condos?), I find interesting!

100%. The fact that this entire thread ignores the Other Side of the River speaks for itself. DC has plenty of real estate where additional housing can be built, including some commercial space DC does not need to destroy the SFH neighborhoods.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone in this thread who is arguing for *not* building new homes needs to answer this very simple question.

Thousands of new jobs are created every month in the DC area. Where, exactly, will those people live?

It really doesn't take a genius to understand that we need more houses. You NIMBYs need to get over it.

Why do you insist on making things up? Or maybe you’ve been in a coma and might of missed it the massive pandemic that led to tens of millions of people being laid off in the space of 2 months?

In any case, I would hesitate to request a citation for these “new jobs”.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This country is headed for a demographic cliff over which there will be a glut of homes as the population (at best) stagnates in major urban/job centers and the number of rural ghost towns skyrockets.

You may want to check the latest Census and compare from 10 years ago. The County population is growing at a steady and reasonable pace. So there will be no "demographic cliff". But similarly, there is no "crisis" either indicating that there is a shortage of housing and these claims of having a deficit of 200k homes that you will see people promote as talking points are just nonsense.

Exactly this.

What people want is 200k houses and amazing schools. You want to get the 5 million cottage in mclean for 500k.

Baltimore is 45 minutes away and you can get a rowhome there for under 100k.

If the maglev is approved, you can get to Baltimore in 15 minutes.

You can afford private school when your house is paid for in cash.

The problem with OP is that they want champagne homes but can only afford beer homes. And this was prepandemic.

Move to Baltimore. It’s not as scary as you think it is.

There are really nice homes in anacostia (4 bed, 2 bath, front porch) for 425 K. Surprised that Anacostia hasn't been "discovered" yet by these GGW folks (racism?). Keep telling my husband we should invest.

Implying folks are racist with absolutely 0 evidence. Nice. You must be fun at parties.

I am! The fact that GGW doesn't view Anacostia as prime for "vibrant density" which would be win win for the current residents (the vibrant part, like more supermarkets and improved transit lines) and provide some additional starter home for families housing (shouldn't this be the goal, not one bedroom condos?), I find interesting!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone in this thread who is arguing for *not* building new homes needs to answer this very simple question.

Thousands of new jobs are created every month in the DC area. Where, exactly, will those people live?

It really doesn't take a genius to understand that we need more houses. You NIMBYs need to get over it.

Although I am do affordable housing- I do believe our parks and public spaces should be left out of it.

This being said- I also know that there is plenty of housing in PG county and PWC.

It’s just that the people who want housing don’t want to commute 45 minutes and still want 2000 sq ft. They like the ease of urban living and don’t understand that everyone else does too.

We need more public transportation. Faster transportation. Maglev would be good if it was cheaper.

But other than that- real estate isn’t going to get cheaper.

Anonymous wrote:Anyone in this thread who is arguing for *not* building new homes needs to answer this very simple question.

Thousands of new jobs are created every month in the DC area. Where, exactly, will those people live?

It really doesn't take a genius to understand that we need more houses. You NIMBYs need to get over it.

Anonymous wrote:Anyone in this thread who is arguing for *not* building new homes needs to answer this very simple question.

Thousands of new jobs are created every month in the DC area. Where, exactly, will those people live?

It really doesn't take a genius to understand that we need more houses. You NIMBYs need to get over it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are great homes across america. I am cool with grandfathering in existing residents and also essential workers (teachers, firefighters etc/ with rent to buy, loans, homestead act.. NOT with feeling compelled to build mini apartments to compete with Ballston rentals.

Are you a developer? If not, then nobody is asking you to build apartments, let alone compelling you to build apartments.

My point is DC is running a $$ surplus, yes, really. There are MANY policies that don't involve building more housing (unless we are talking homeless shelters, which are fine!) that would protect existing DC residents from being priced out (like the homestead act, or more loans to buy houses) and allow the kinds of middle class residents who provide essential services to find footholds in the city. All this can be done without building little 1-2 bedroom.units all over ward 3. Those are just to lure young professionals from Ballston.

There are many policies that would increase the supply of housing without increasing the supply of housing?

NP. These talking points are tiresome. Any supply of housing units of any type is not a net positive good for the immediate or long-term in and of itself. It’s a question of the values you want to promote through your economic and development policy.

I'm trying to increase the supply of housing. The value I'm trying to promote is that people need housing.

But people don't need housing in expensive cities and subsidized by the government. And there is enough housing for people in the United States, you just don't like the price and the location.

Yeah, people can live in dying rural areas for cheap. Who cares if there aren't any "jobs," or "transportation to where there are jobs," or "reasons to be there at all." They can figure all those things out themselves once they're safely out of sight and out of mind, that way I can enjoy my artificially scarce housing in peace without any fear of having to look at the filthy poors.

There are many cities with cheaper housing stock that are not "dying rural areas." I find it really bizarre that you think taxpayers should be required to subsidize housing (for let's face it, mostly immigrants - because they are the source of population growth) in areas that they themselves cannot afford to live. It is a fundamental part of a market economy... the most desirable places will be the most expensive. I don't get to live anywhere that I want, and neither should people who are simply being rewarded for being low income.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are great homes across america. I am cool with grandfathering in existing residents and also essential workers (teachers, firefighters etc/ with rent to buy, loans, homestead act.. NOT with feeling compelled to build mini apartments to compete with Ballston rentals.

Are you a developer? If not, then nobody is asking you to build apartments, let alone compelling you to build apartments.

My point is DC is running a $$ surplus, yes, really. There are MANY policies that don't involve building more housing (unless we are talking homeless shelters, which are fine!) that would protect existing DC residents from being priced out (like the homestead act, or more loans to buy houses) and allow the kinds of middle class residents who provide essential services to find footholds in the city. All this can be done without building little 1-2 bedroom.units all over ward 3. Those are just to lure young professionals from Ballston.

There are many policies that would increase the supply of housing without increasing the supply of housing?

NP. These talking points are tiresome. Any supply of housing units of any type is not a net positive good for the immediate or long-term in and of itself. It’s a question of the values you want to promote through your economic and development policy.

I'm trying to increase the supply of housing. The value I'm trying to promote is that people need housing.

But people don't need housing in expensive cities and subsidized by the government. And there is enough housing for people in the United States, you just don't like the price and the location.

Yeah, people can live in dying rural areas for cheap. Who cares if there aren't any "jobs," or "transportation to where there are jobs," or "reasons to be there at all." They can figure all those things out themselves once they're safely out of sight and out of mind, that way I can enjoy my artificially scarce housing in peace without any fear of having to look at the filthy poors.

There are many cities with cheaper housing stock that are not "dying rural areas." I find it really bizarre that you think taxpayers should be required to subsidize housing (for let's face it, mostly immigrants - because they are the source of population growth) in areas that they themselves cannot afford to live. It is a fundamental part of a market economy... the most desirable places will be the most expensive. I don't get to live anywhere that I want, and neither should people who are simply being rewarded for being low income.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are great homes across america. I am cool with grandfathering in existing residents and also essential workers (teachers, firefighters etc/ with rent to buy, loans, homestead act.. NOT with feeling compelled to build mini apartments to compete with Ballston rentals.

Are you a developer? If not, then nobody is asking you to build apartments, let alone compelling you to build apartments.

My point is DC is running a $$ surplus, yes, really. There are MANY policies that don't involve building more housing (unless we are talking homeless shelters, which are fine!) that would protect existing DC residents from being priced out (like the homestead act, or more loans to buy houses) and allow the kinds of middle class residents who provide essential services to find footholds in the city. All this can be done without building little 1-2 bedroom.units all over ward 3. Those are just to lure young professionals from Ballston.

There are many policies that would increase the supply of housing without increasing the supply of housing?

NP. These talking points are tiresome. Any supply of housing units of any type is not a net positive good for the immediate or long-term in and of itself. It’s a question of the values you want to promote through your economic and development policy.

I'm trying to increase the supply of housing. The value I'm trying to promote is that people need housing.

But people don't need housing in expensive cities and subsidized by the government. And there is enough housing for people in the United States, you just don't like the price and the location.

Yeah, people can live in dying rural areas for cheap. Who cares if there aren't any "jobs," or "transportation to where there are jobs," or "reasons to be there at all." They can figure all those things out themselves once they're safely out of sight and out of mind, that way I can enjoy my artificially scarce housing in peace without any fear of having to look at the filthy poors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Increasing density drives housing prices up because it creates economies of scale for businesses.

When lots of people are packed into an area, restaurants and bars and boutiques want to be there too because they want foot traffic. People in turn want to live near walking distance of those restaurants and bars, which drives up demand to live in that area, which increases prices. That creates more incentive to build housing there, which draws even more businesses (more customers!), which leads more people to want to live there, which further drives up housing prices.

It's an upward spiral that would have never begun if there wasn't a critical mass of people living in an area (in condos and apartments) in the first place. This is why a 800 square foot condo in Navy Yard costs more than a single family home in Michigan Park.

You keep saying this. But Navy Yard condos cost more than Michigan Park houses because they were all built as expensive luxury units in the last decade (or last couple of years), not because it's dense. And comparing Navy Yard, which was mostly not a residential area before the relatively recent development there, to longtime residential neighborhoods doesn't make much sense, anyway — it wasn't just that density increased, it was that suddenly there were people living there in large numbers, period, regardless of how many of them there are per square mile.

What does drive up prices in a lot of neighborhoods is gentrification. But increased density in already wealthy neighborhoods does not drive up housing prices per square foot, it lowers them by making it possible to rent or buy apartments rather than only big single-family homes. A growing population with more disposable income may drive up rents for the bars/restaurants/businesses you say will flock to the area, but it doesn't drive up prices for housing if housing is already expensive. I see another poster has linked to various studies that have come to different conclusions than you have, too.

increased density never actually happens in wealthy neighborhoods. it *only* happens in poorer neighborhoods.

What on Earth are you talking about? Densification happens in wealthy neighborhoods. Take a walk through Capitol Hill, Dupont Circle, Logan Circle, or Adams Morgan. You'll see plenty of pop-ups being constructed, rowhomes being subdivided, and condos filling in what precious underdeveloped lots remain. You just don't see the massive cranes because these neighborhoods are already built up, are bumping up against ridiculous, arbitrary height restrictions, are facing onerous restrictions from the historic preservation review board, are dealing with gadflies making bad faith arguments about how any new development will irreparably alter the character of the neighborhood, or all of the above.