Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as the whole "we need homes for teachers, and cops, etc"

OK, lets just run the numbers then.

a 750,000 duplex, condo, whatever , is a 600k mortgage. And thats asumming they can scare up 150 to get 20% down and avoid PMI.

Thats still 4k a month.

Who is swinging that? Not some GS12 and teacher partner.

Just call it what it is- upzoning. Greater density. It's not "missing middle", or middle class affordable. That couple is still going to buy a place for 550 somewhere way farther out.

Let's run the numbers. Right now, egg producers are only allowed to produce and sell two sizes of eggs: extra large eggs and small eggs. The middle class can't afford extra large eggs. In the future, however, egg producers will also be allowed to produce and sell "missing middle" eggs, so: extra large eggs, large eggs, medium eggs, and small eggs. In addition, more eggs will be available, total.

Will more people be able to afford eggs once egg producers are also allowed to produce and sell large eggs and medium eggs, and more eggs are available, total?

Youre ignoring my point.

So the 750k condo gets bought by... whomever can afford and chooses that. But it isnt the middle class the plan pretends it will be.

Will that help the overall macro housing shortage? Sure. But its being sold as a way to allow teachers and firefighters and whoever to live where they work. And that is patently false.

The word Middle in missing middle is not “middle class”. It literally refers to a type of housing stock that is missing - townhouses, 4 flats, and mid-rise buildings.

I lived for many years in Cleveland Heights and Shaker Heights Ohio, suburbs of Cleveland that have some similarities to N Arlington (Shaker) and S Arlington (CH). I lived in neighborhoods that mixed walkable retail (Westover), townhouses or apartments above retail, large 1890-1940s Tudor and Victorian mansions, “regular” houses similar to the 1940s colonials, and 4-flat buildings with parking behind. It was no issue at all and lead to a vibrant, active neighborhood. Personally I would welcome more of that mix in my neighborhood.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as the whole "we need homes for teachers, and cops, etc"

OK, lets just run the numbers then.

a 750,000 duplex, condo, whatever , is a 600k mortgage. And thats asumming they can scare up 150 to get 20% down and avoid PMI.

Thats still 4k a month.

Who is swinging that? Not some GS12 and teacher partner.

Just call it what it is- upzoning. Greater density. It's not "missing middle", or middle class affordable. That couple is still going to buy a place for 550 somewhere way farther out.

Let's run the numbers. Right now, egg producers are only allowed to produce and sell two sizes of eggs: extra large eggs and small eggs. The middle class can't afford extra large eggs. In the future, however, egg producers will also be allowed to produce and sell "missing middle" eggs, so: extra large eggs, large eggs, medium eggs, and small eggs. In addition, more eggs will be available, total.

Will more people be able to afford eggs once egg producers are also allowed to produce and sell large eggs and medium eggs, and more eggs are available, total?

Youre ignoring my point.

So the 750k condo gets bought by... whomever can afford and chooses that. But it isnt the middle class the plan pretends it will be.

Will that help the overall macro housing shortage? Sure. But its being sold as a way to allow teachers and firefighters and whoever to live where they work. And that is patently false.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the end of the day, no middle class families are moving into 4-plexes. Like everyone else, they want a SFH, not some lame townhouse with zero parking.

Adding density just brings in more young people, mostly those that used to live in DC but now want a bigger place to support WFH.

Yep.

And its fine to debate the merits of increasing the density, but its insulting to suggest families are going to be buying these 750k duplexes or condos. It will be young yuppies. Lets at least ne honest about that.

Middle-class families aren't going to move into unaffordable fourplexes, they are going to hold out for even more unaffordable detached houses?

But also those fourplexes are going to be loud because of all of the families living in them?

No... they are going to get their SFH where they can afford to! Like always.

Yes- those are extremely luxory townhouses.

I'm not sure what your point is.



No they don't always! What are you talking about? Many, many families around here live in townhouses or condos! Get out of your bubble.

Yes, yes they do.

But not at those price points.

I lived with my family in a townhouse too. It wasnt 750k.

The people, with families, paying 750k do not choose multi family.

I'm a DP, but yes, get out of your bubble. Everyone doesn't have exactly the same preferences or make the same choices as you do.
https://www.remax.com/md/rockville/home-details/10755-symphony-park-dr-rockville-md-20852/11775702052821979982/M00000309/MDMC2075844

Anonymous wrote:Arlington doesn’t want a middle class.

North Arlington (looking at you, Lyon Park) wants to be rich people only, and they want their domestic help living in South Arlington.


There’s no room for the rest of you peasants.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the end of the day, no middle class families are moving into 4-plexes. Like everyone else, they want a SFH, not some lame townhouse with zero parking.

Adding density just brings in more young people, mostly those that used to live in DC but now want a bigger place to support WFH.

Yep.

And its fine to debate the merits of increasing the density, but its insulting to suggest families are going to be buying these 750k duplexes or condos. It will be young yuppies. Lets at least ne honest about that.

Middle-class families aren't going to move into unaffordable fourplexes, they are going to hold out for even more unaffordable detached houses?

But also those fourplexes are going to be loud because of all of the families living in them?

No... they are going to get their SFH where they can afford to! Like always.

No they don't always! What are you talking about? Many, many families around here live in townhouses or condos! Get out of your bubble.

Yes, yes they do.

But not at those price points.

I lived with my family in a townhouse too. It wasnt 750k.

The people, with families, paying 750k do not choose multi family.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No it won’t. If you have a newly built house that can’t be torn down, your value immediately goes down if you have 16-20 people living next door to you.

Why can't it be torn down?

Really, you are this dumb? Because the house is worth almost 2 million dollars, not including the land…it literally makes no economic sense.

If there's a new McMansion on a parcel where a builder can build an eight-plex, then most of the value of the parcel is in the land value, not the improvement value, and it likely would make economic sense to tear down the McMansion.

It would not make economic sense to pay 2.5 million dollars for a tear down (McMansion). I am literally shocked, that I have to state this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know much about this plan but I am sceptical of an economist who says increasing the density and amount of available housing will drive housing prices up.

Have you read the plan? Someone on here linked to it before, and even the 8-plex units were like $500K each and the townhomes were around $1.5 million. It's definitely a plan to increase density because housing at those prices won't do anything for low-income workers.

Just to follow up, this article has the slide with expected pricing. Examples:

$520K to $670K for an 8-plex
$1.1 to $1.4 million for a duplex

Good luck to the non-profit workers who think this will benefit them. Plenty of inventory out there already that is more competitively priced than this MM housing would be.

Who are all these people with enough money to spend $600K for a property who want to live in an 8-plex, especially in the age of remote work?

Nobody. They are all gong to be rental units.

So the purpose of "missing middle" was just to create more rentals? That wasn't my understanding. And the official presentation shows purchase prices, not rental prices.

Of course it shows purchase prices, that is how the County is selling it. In reality, how many people are going to buy a unit in an eight plex in an area with minimal transportation? With a family? No one.

You wouldn't, but that doesn't mean other people won't.

These aren’t going to be condos. They are small apartment buildings with a single owner. Obviously. The townhouse and duplex modes would have individual buyers, but not the 4-8 plexes with 1-2 bedroom units.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the end of the day, no middle class families are moving into 4-plexes. Like everyone else, they want a SFH, not some lame townhouse with zero parking.

Adding density just brings in more young people, mostly those that used to live in DC but now want a bigger place to support WFH.

Yep.

And its fine to debate the merits of increasing the density, but its insulting to suggest families are going to be buying these 750k duplexes or condos. It will be young yuppies. Lets at least ne honest about that.

Middle-class families aren't going to move into unaffordable fourplexes, they are going to hold out for even more unaffordable detached houses?

But also those fourplexes are going to be loud because of all of the families living in them?

No... they are going to get their SFH where they can afford to! Like always.

No they don't always! What are you talking about? Many, many families around here live in townhouses or condos! Get out of your bubble.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know much about this plan but I am sceptical of an economist who says increasing the density and amount of available housing will drive housing prices up.

Have you read the plan? Someone on here linked to it before, and even the 8-plex units were like $500K each and the townhomes were around $1.5 million. It's definitely a plan to increase density because housing at those prices won't do anything for low-income workers.

Just to follow up, this article has the slide with expected pricing. Examples:

$520K to $670K for an 8-plex
$1.1 to $1.4 million for a duplex

Good luck to the non-profit workers who think this will benefit them. Plenty of inventory out there already that is more competitively priced than this MM housing would be.

Who are all these people with enough money to spend $600K for a property who want to live in an 8-plex, especially in the age of remote work?

Nobody. They are all gong to be rental units.

So the purpose of "missing middle" was just to create more rentals? That wasn't my understanding. And the official presentation shows purchase prices, not rental prices.

Of course it shows purchase prices, that is how the County is selling it. In reality, how many people are going to buy a unit in an eight plex in an area with minimal transportation? With a family? No one.

You wouldn't, but that doesn't mean other people won't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know much about this plan but I am sceptical of an economist who says increasing the density and amount of available housing will drive housing prices up.

Have you read the plan? Someone on here linked to it before, and even the 8-plex units were like $500K each and the townhomes were around $1.5 million. It's definitely a plan to increase density because housing at those prices won't do anything for low-income workers.

Just to follow up, this article has the slide with expected pricing. Examples:

$520K to $670K for an 8-plex
$1.1 to $1.4 million for a duplex

Good luck to the non-profit workers who think this will benefit them. Plenty of inventory out there already that is more competitively priced than this MM housing would be.

Who are all these people with enough money to spend $600K for a property who want to live in an 8-plex, especially in the age of remote work?

Nobody. They are all gong to be rental units.

So the purpose of "missing middle" was just to create more rentals? That wasn't my understanding. And the official presentation shows purchase prices, not rental prices.

Of course it shows purchase prices, that is how the County is selling it. In reality, how many people are going to buy a unit in an eight plex in an area with minimal transportation? With a family? No one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No it won’t. If you have a newly built house that can’t be torn down, your value immediately goes down if you have 16-20 people living next door to you.

Why can't it be torn down?

Really, you are this dumb? Because the house is worth almost 2 million dollars, not including the land…it literally makes no economic sense.

If there's a new McMansion on a parcel where a builder can build an eight-plex, then most of the value of the parcel is in the land value, not the improvement value, and it likely would make economic sense to tear down the McMansion.

It would not make economic sense to pay 2.5 million dollars for a tear down (McMansion). I am literally shocked, that I have to state this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know much about this plan but I am sceptical of an economist who says increasing the density and amount of available housing will drive housing prices up.

Have you read the plan? Someone on here linked to it before, and even the 8-plex units were like $500K each and the townhomes were around $1.5 million. It's definitely a plan to increase density because housing at those prices won't do anything for low-income workers.

Just to follow up, this article has the slide with expected pricing. Examples:

$520K to $670K for an 8-plex
$1.1 to $1.4 million for a duplex

Good luck to the non-profit workers who think this will benefit them. Plenty of inventory out there already that is more competitively priced than this MM housing would be.

Who are all these people with enough money to spend $600K for a property who want to live in an 8-plex, especially in the age of remote work?

Nobody. They are all gong to be rental units.

So the purpose of "missing middle" was just to create more rentals? That wasn't my understanding. And the official presentation shows purchase prices, not rental prices.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know much about this plan but I am sceptical of an economist who says increasing the density and amount of available housing will drive housing prices up.

Have you read the plan? Someone on here linked to it before, and even the 8-plex units were like $500K each and the townhomes were around $1.5 million. It's definitely a plan to increase density because housing at those prices won't do anything for low-income workers.

Just to follow up, this article has the slide with expected pricing. Examples:

$520K to $670K for an 8-plex
$1.1 to $1.4 million for a duplex

Good luck to the non-profit workers who think this will benefit them. Plenty of inventory out there already that is more competitively priced than this MM housing would be.

Who are all these people with enough money to spend $600K for a property who want to live in an 8-plex, especially in the age of remote work?

Nobody. They are all gong to be rental units.

So the purpose of "missing middle" was just to create more rentals? That wasn't my understanding. And the official presentation shows purchase prices, not rental prices.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No it won’t. If you have a newly built house that can’t be torn down, your value immediately goes down if you have 16-20 people living next door to you.

Why can't it be torn down?

Really, you are this dumb? Because the house is worth almost 2 million dollars, not including the land…it literally makes no economic sense.

If there's a new McMansion on a parcel where a builder can build an eight-plex, then most of the value of the parcel is in the land value, not the improvement value, and it likely would make economic sense to tear down the McMansion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know much about this plan but I am sceptical of an economist who says increasing the density and amount of available housing will drive housing prices up.

Have you read the plan? Someone on here linked to it before, and even the 8-plex units were like $500K each and the townhomes were around $1.5 million. It's definitely a plan to increase density because housing at those prices won't do anything for low-income workers.

Just to follow up, this article has the slide with expected pricing. Examples:

$520K to $670K for an 8-plex
$1.1 to $1.4 million for a duplex

Good luck to the non-profit workers who think this will benefit them. Plenty of inventory out there already that is more competitively priced than this MM housing would be.

Who are all these people with enough money to spend $600K for a property who want to live in an 8-plex, especially in the age of remote work?

Nobody. They are all gong to be rental units.