Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm also going to note that people oppose bills like this (allowing duplexes) on grounds that they won't increase affordable housing, but also oppose affordable-housing projects on grounds that they're "projects".

Or, just maybe, they want to keep their neighborhoods like they are. With space and yards. Lots of people did not grow up in urban environments and will resist it. You can't blame that on racism--like the delegate does. But, then, he blames everything on racism.

Have you ever seen a duplex?

It depends on what this bill says, in detail. A duplex could just be a ranch style home converted to a two unit, three story townhouse. That's not going to create affordable, low income housing. The bill could mean you can add an apartment over your garage. That potentially creates low income housing since it is smaller and less desirable.

Anonymous wrote:Increasing density drives prices up, not down.

The more people you put in an area, the more restaurants bars and other businesses want to be there too. That leads to more people wanting to live there, which leads to more businesses moving in, which makes the area more desirable and housing prices go to the moon.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Increasing density drives prices up, not down.

The more people you put in an area, the more restaurants bars and other businesses want to be there too. That leads to more people wanting to live there, which leads to more businesses moving in, which makes the area more desirable and housing prices go to the moon.

+1

This is why NYC is both extremely dense and extremely expensive.

Anonymous wrote:Increasing density drives prices up, not down.

The more people you put in an area, the more restaurants bars and other businesses want to be there too. That leads to more people wanting to live there, which leads to more businesses moving in, which makes the area more desirable and housing prices go to the moon.

Anonymous wrote:

I'm also going to note that people oppose bills like this (allowing duplexes) on grounds that they won't increase affordable housing, but also oppose affordable-housing projects on grounds that they're "projects".

Or, just maybe, they want to keep their neighborhoods like they are. With space and yards. Lots of people did not grow up in urban environments and will resist it. You can't blame that on racism--like the delegate does. But, then, he blames everything on racism.

Anonymous wrote:Urban planning does not “generally” approve of blanket increases to housing supply. It is not a political movement or ideology. It is not a liberal or conservative policy. It is the process of the development of land and the surrounding infrastructure. Good urban planning is what everyone should strive for and hope to achieve. Rubber stamping increases in housing, without taking into account any of the necessary infrastructure, is extremely poor urban planning.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm also going to note that people oppose bills like this (allowing duplexes) on grounds that they won't increase affordable housing, but also oppose affordable-housing projects on grounds that they're "projects".

Or, just maybe, they want to keep their neighborhoods like they are. With space and yards. Lots of people did not grow up in urban environments and will resist it. You can't blame that on racism--like the delegate does. But, then, he blames everything on racism.

Have you ever seen a duplex?

Anonymous wrote:

I'm also going to note that people oppose bills like this (allowing duplexes) on grounds that they won't increase affordable housing, but also oppose affordable-housing projects on grounds that they're "projects".

Or, just maybe, they want to keep their neighborhoods like they are. With space and yards. Lots of people did not grow up in urban environments and will resist it. You can't blame that on racism--like the delegate does. But, then, he blames everything on racism.

Anonymous wrote:Urban planning does not “generally” approve of blanket increases to housing supply. It is not a political movement or ideology. It is not a liberal or conservative policy. It is the process of the development of land and the surrounding infrastructure. Good urban planning is what everyone should strive for and hope to achieve. Rubber stamping increases in housing, without taking into account any of the necessary infrastructure, is extremely poor urban planning.

I'm also going to note that people oppose bills like this (allowing duplexes) on grounds that they won't increase affordable housing, but also oppose affordable-housing projects on grounds that they're "projects".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He can put as many duplexes as he wants in McLean. Won’t change the fact that poor people will not be able to afford them. All those extra units will go to young, upper class DINKS. They’ll get a leg up in the housing ladder and build enough equity to move on to a SFH. Go for it.

This. I’ve worked my entire legal career in affordable housing/ section 8 funding/ multi family. The above scenario is exactly what will happen. In order to provide more affordable and work force housing, you need a HUD or other government program. There is just 0 incentive or profit for private developers, even with tax credits. And with the amazon affect, there is even more 0 chance that any duplexs in the future built in single family lots in Arlington/ Alexandria/ McLean/ Falls Church, etc won’t be UMC or higher price point.

Developers are pushing this idea. And then you will start to see individuals try to be their own developer, turning a house into a duplex/ condo situation. And they aren’t going to FARM families.

OK, so - they will increase the supply of housing, in areas where people want to live. Why would that be bad?

The premise was that this law would increase the volume of affordable housing (at least that’s the argument being given by the mayor in Alexandria where I live). So the basis for the entire policy is completely false and misleading.

From an urban planning perspective there are tons of reasons why you cannot just blanket increase housing because more people want to live there. I highly doubt individual developers will be providing proffers to local municipalities to help offset the strain added to the streets, the schools, the infrastructure, the first responder forces, social services, utilities, parking, etc. In somewhere like Alexandria where the public school system is already overstrained, overpopulated and just a mess, the traffic is a mess, that has only one hospital (that is pretty subpar), where crime seems regular, etc. just packing in more housing without smartly addressing urban planning first is just a huge nightmare/mistake.

Read up on urban planning and then come back on this thread.