Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

False -- the places where people most aggressively oppose increasing density are already quite wealthy (think of anywhere on the Red Line north of, say, Dupont Circle). You could build an ENORMOUS amount of new, dense housing near Metro stations there, and gentrification isn't an issue at all.

Um, 5 seconds of googling proves this really wrong, at least in DC. One of the biggest opponents of increased density is a Black Anacostia resident who has filed lawsuits on behalf of poor Black residents of Barry Farm, the Union Market area and Buzzard Point (all of them now priced out because of increased density there).

https://www.stooplaw.com/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Trickle-down gentrification" is a more apt term than "smart growth."

Y'all need to make up your mind.

IF building more housing on top of Metro stations is gentrification because it will become an attractive area where lots of people want to live, THEN people want more housing on top of Metro stations, AND we should allow more to be built.

IF few people want to live in housing on top of Metro stations, THEN builders won't build housing on top of Metro stations, AND it won't cause gentrification.

So, which is it?

The point is few people currently want to ride Metro, so the argument that we MUST build on top of Metro in DC is stupid. Spread mixed income development throughout the city, which has great bus lines. Ah, but the developers don't want to do that $$$$$

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Trickle-down gentrification" is a more apt term than "smart growth."

Y'all need to make up your mind.

IF building more housing on top of Metro stations is gentrification because it will become an attractive area where lots of people want to live, THEN people want more housing on top of Metro stations, AND we should allow more to be built.

IF few people want to live in housing on top of Metro stations, THEN builders won't build housing on top of Metro stations, AND it won't cause gentrification.

So, which is it?

The point is few people currently want to ride Metro, so the argument that we MUST build on top of Metro in DC is stupid. Spread mixed income development throughout the city, which has great bus lines. Ah, but the developers don't want to do that $$$$$

If you think the city has great bus lines, you are either commuting at 6 AM or WFH pre-pandemic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Trickle-down gentrification" is a more apt term than "smart growth."

Y'all need to make up your mind.

IF building more housing on top of Metro stations is gentrification because it will become an attractive area where lots of people want to live, THEN people want more housing on top of Metro stations, AND we should allow more to be built.

IF few people want to live in housing on top of Metro stations, THEN builders won't build housing on top of Metro stations, AND it won't cause gentrification.

So, which is it?

The point is few people currently want to ride Metro, so the argument that we MUST build on top of Metro in DC is stupid. Spread mixed income development throughout the city, which has great bus lines. Ah, but the developers don't want to do that $$$$$

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Trickle-down gentrification" is a more apt term than "smart growth."

Y'all need to make up your mind.

IF building more housing on top of Metro stations is gentrification because it will become an attractive area where lots of people want to live, THEN people want more housing on top of Metro stations, AND we should allow more to be built.

IF few people want to live in housing on top of Metro stations, THEN builders won't build housing on top of Metro stations, AND it won't cause gentrification.

So, which is it?

Anonymous wrote:"Trickle-down gentrification" is a more apt term than "smart growth."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

False -- the places where people most aggressively oppose increasing density are already quite wealthy (think of anywhere on the Red Line north of, say, Dupont Circle). You could build an ENORMOUS amount of new, dense housing near Metro stations there, and gentrification isn't an issue at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think what makes DC attractive is the variety of neighborhoods and lifestyle choices in so small a city. The density bros look at a neighborhood that some people find desirable precisely because it isn't dense, and argue that it should be made denser (thereby erasing what made it attractive in the first place). it's sort of a Catch-22 (hope I'm using that right/know it's often misused). The desirability factor of course guarantees immediate winnings for developers. Once DC looks the SAME everywhere, they'll have moved on.

Anonymous wrote:

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:

"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:There's a pandemic

There's a pandemic

There's a pandemic

There's a pandemic


Road use is way down too.

Anonymous wrote:

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.