Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an existing homeowner, by primary concern is maintaining the value of our home. If they’re building modern/attractive units, i don’t see multi-unit buildings having any negative impact. A lot of the anti MM imagery includes ugly buildings that would be out of place in our neighborhood. I don’t think developers would get much return on that kind of project so I’m not too worried. You should see the sprawling SFH new builds in our neighborhood - we’ve got one that could house a small village. Not sure how that embodies any type of suburban family-oriented utopia.

Agree with all this. I live in N Arlington. Lots near us are generally 6-7k sq ft so I don’t think a giant condo building will fit anyway. And I’m not sure a triplex or small garden apartment building would necessarily be uglier than some of the McMansions built around here. It’s not like being sandwiched between McMansions is living the dream.

My only concerns are about county services and ordinances. I want to see strict enforcement of storm water requirements and ideally developers would be liable if they offload water into existing neighbors’ yards. I think they need to be serious about fixing HS overcrowding and offering more things like summer camps and gymnastics classes which are already notoriously hard to get into. I think much of the county board pushing this has a foot out the door and won’t be around if there is any fall out.

So overall I support MM but I want to see developers take some responsibility for the demand on our resources and the county board be realistic about the increased demands.

The county won’t address the school overcrowding because it can’t. It doesn’t have the money to meaningfully build out existing schools or buy land for a 4th high school. APS has admitted as much in written reports. Since the school overcrowding is happening work or without MM, I don’t care if they make the zoning more flexible. It would take a ton of MM to equal the number of students brought to Arlington as just a single Committed Affordable Housing development. So let some more people live here. I hope it helps some families.

The county doesn't have the money? Or APS doesn't have the money? Not the same thing...

Anonymous wrote:We're soon to be empty nesters and would like to move closer into the City. We love Arlington/Ballston metro area. We think that the Missing Middle offers a tremendous opportunity to finally buy into Arlington. We're excited about the prospects of more housing type choices being proposed by builders. Thank you, Arlington County board, for your foresight and thoughtfulness to do something about the affordability crisis in America.

You can now buy a townhouse or duplex for $1,300,000 or rent a two bedroom two bath with one parking space fod $3,500 a month. You can do the same thing now in Arlington; Missing Middle changed nothing.

Anonymous wrote:So much for being able to choose a community that is lower density and a safer place for your kids to walk and bike. Now you’re going to have 12 cars for each 6 unit dwelling they permit.

Sorry Arlington was never going to remain lower density. If that mattered to you, you should have bought further out

We're soon to be empty nesters and would like to move closer into the City. We love Arlington/Ballston metro area. We think that the Missing Middle offers a tremendous opportunity to finally buy into Arlington. We're excited about the prospects of more housing type choices being proposed by builders. Thank you, Arlington County board, for your foresight and thoughtfulness to do something about the affordability crisis in America.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The plan caps the number of these projects annually, and there’s a world of difference between 6 units and a high rise apartment complex. I’m having trouble seeing it generate a huge spike in school enrollment. Won’t most of these kids be kids who would have ended up in some form of housing in Arlington regardless, so it just shifts which school they’re zoned for? I mean maybe a handful of kids whose parents were looking everywhere in the DMV will end up in Arlington as a direct result of this policy change, but those numbers can’t be that big.

I think the kids who end up here will be the kids whose parents otherwise would have been priced out. So instead of jumping to Vienna or Reston or whatever, they buy in Arlington.

Or maybe these are kids whose parents would have continued to rent or bought in a less expensive neighborhood within Arlington (with MM maybe opening up a few more opportunities for home ownership in N Arlington).

Anonymous wrote:The plan caps the number of these projects annually, and there’s a world of difference between 6 units and a high rise apartment complex. I’m having trouble seeing it generate a huge spike in school enrollment. Won’t most of these kids be kids who would have ended up in some form of housing in Arlington regardless, so it just shifts which school they’re zoned for? I mean maybe a handful of kids whose parents were looking everywhere in the DMV will end up in Arlington as a direct result of this policy change, but those numbers can’t be that big.

I think the kids who end up here will be the kids whose parents otherwise would have been priced out. So instead of jumping to Vienna or Reston or whatever, they buy in Arlington.

Anonymous wrote:I live in Green Valley where a lot of old houses are being torn down to build duplexes or townhomes. Those duplexes and townhomes are around 900K. The older SFH in the neighborhood are less.

Anyway, not sure 900K plus is really what the county was looking for with this proposal. I don't see how these new builds in any other neighborhood are going to be less money considering my neighborhood is already one of the least expensive in Arlington.

I think the county knew this would be 900k+ housing. The middle part is the type of housing stock. It’s not a high rise apartment/condo building and it’s not a $2m SFH. So the ~$1m duplexes/triplexes are the “middle.” The targeted buyers are the couples making 200-300k/year.

The long term problem though is that upzoning increases land value. So I think this will speed up price increases in Arlington. But the alternative is to let all this desirable land be taken over by giant homes so that future generations have no choice but the live in a 6k sq Ft house basically when many people don’t want to live in something that big. In fact a lot of my friends/neighbors in these large houses say they would have liked something somewhat smaller but they wanted new construction, or didn’t want a total fixer or whatever. So this was what the market was selling. Of course I wonder if they would have settled for shared walls? Presumably someone will though. Look at DC where row houses are the norm. I think UMC will have to embrace shared walls to live close in.

The plan caps the number of these projects annually, and there’s a world of difference between 6 units and a high rise apartment complex. I’m having trouble seeing it generate a huge spike in school enrollment. Won’t most of these kids be kids who would have ended up in some form of housing in Arlington regardless, so it just shifts which school they’re zoned for? I mean maybe a handful of kids whose parents were looking everywhere in the DMV will end up in Arlington as a direct result of this policy change, but those numbers can’t be that big.

I live in Green Valley where a lot of old houses are being torn down to build duplexes or townhomes. Those duplexes and townhomes are around 900K. The older SFH in the neighborhood are less.

Anyway, not sure 900K plus is really what the county was looking for with this proposal. I don't see how these new builds in any other neighborhood are going to be less money considering my neighborhood is already one of the least expensive in Arlington.

Anonymous wrote:So much for being able to choose a community that is lower density and a safer place for your kids to walk and bike. Now you’re going to have 12 cars for each 6 unit dwelling they permit.

You do realize that families in denser areas do have fewer cars? The safest place from a car crash for kids is actually in dense urban areas. The more suburban you go, the more dangerous it becomes. Gridlock saves lives, empty and free flowing streets just encourages bad behavior.

So much for being able to choose a community that is lower density and a safer place for your kids to walk and bike. Now you’re going to have 12 cars for each 6 unit dwelling they permit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an existing homeowner, by primary concern is maintaining the value of our home. If they’re building modern/attractive units, i don’t see multi-unit buildings having any negative impact. A lot of the anti MM imagery includes ugly buildings that would be out of place in our neighborhood. I don’t think developers would get much return on that kind of project so I’m not too worried. You should see the sprawling SFH new builds in our neighborhood - we’ve got one that could house a small village. Not sure how that embodies any type of suburban family-oriented utopia.

Agree with all this. I live in N Arlington. Lots near us are generally 6-7k sq ft so I don’t think a giant condo building will fit anyway. And I’m not sure a triplex or small garden apartment building would necessarily be uglier than some of the McMansions built around here. It’s not like being sandwiched between McMansions is living the dream.

My only concerns are about county services and ordinances. I want to see strict enforcement of storm water requirements and ideally developers would be liable if they offload water into existing neighbors’ yards. I think they need to be serious about fixing HS overcrowding and offering more things like summer camps and gymnastics classes which are already notoriously hard to get into. I think much of the county board pushing this has a foot out the door and won’t be around if there is any fall out.

So overall I support MM but I want to see developers take some responsibility for the demand on our resources and the county board be realistic about the increased demands.

The county won’t address the school overcrowding because it can’t. It doesn’t have the money to meaningfully build out existing schools or buy land for a 4th high school. APS has admitted as much in written reports. Since the school overcrowding is happening work or without MM, I don’t care if they make the zoning more flexible. It would take a ton of MM to equal the number of students brought to Arlington as just a single Committed Affordable Housing development. So let some more people live here. I hope it helps some families.

Anonymous wrote:As an existing homeowner, by primary concern is maintaining the value of our home. If they’re building modern/attractive units, i don’t see multi-unit buildings having any negative impact. A lot of the anti MM imagery includes ugly buildings that would be out of place in our neighborhood. I don’t think developers would get much return on that kind of project so I’m not too worried. You should see the sprawling SFH new builds in our neighborhood - we’ve got one that could house a small village. Not sure how that embodies any type of suburban family-oriented utopia.

Agree with all this. I live in N Arlington. Lots near us are generally 6-7k sq ft so I don’t think a giant condo building will fit anyway. And I’m not sure a triplex or small garden apartment building would necessarily be uglier than some of the McMansions built around here. It’s not like being sandwiched between McMansions is living the dream.

My only concerns are about county services and ordinances. I want to see strict enforcement of storm water requirements and ideally developers would be liable if they offload water into existing neighbors’ yards. I think they need to be serious about fixing HS overcrowding and offering more things like summer camps and gymnastics classes which are already notoriously hard to get into. I think much of the county board pushing this has a foot out the door and won’t be around if there is any fall out.

So overall I support MM but I want to see developers take some responsibility for the demand on our resources and the county board be realistic about the increased demands.

As an existing homeowner, by primary concern is maintaining the value of our home. If they’re building modern/attractive units, i don’t see multi-unit buildings having any negative impact. A lot of the anti MM imagery includes ugly buildings that would be out of place in our neighborhood. I don’t think developers would get much return on that kind of project so I’m not too worried. You should see the sprawling SFH new builds in our neighborhood - we’ve got one that could house a small village. Not sure how that embodies any type of suburban family-oriented utopia.

This is my observation from other places that has implemented MM like coconut grove area in miami a couple of decades ago. The are many 6-8 unites townhomes throughout peppered in between sfh and non of them are affordable. A relative bought a 2000sf townhouse for 800k 6 years ago, it is north worth 2M based on comps. She doesn’t dare sell as she would have to move to a different area, her home is now the entry point more or less