Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Stockholm? Hahaha. Any success stories closer to home? How is density working out in Manhattan?

What do you mean, how is it working out? The population density in Manhattan is about 26,000 people/mi2. How's it working out in Taipei (39,000 people/mi2), Seoul (43,000 people/mi2), and Lagos (47,000 people/mi2)?

How is it working out in terms of affordable housing?

Anonymous wrote:

Stockholm? Hahaha. Any success stories closer to home? How is density working out in Manhattan?

What do you mean, how is it working out? The population density in Manhattan is about 26,000 people/mi2. How's it working out in Taipei (39,000 people/mi2), Seoul (43,000 people/mi2), and Lagos (47,000 people/mi2)?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[

Can you give an example of govt intervention reducing housing prices so that it is affordable for all residents?

Huh? It's common in many other countries to have a social-housing program. In fact, even the US used to have a social-housing program for white people, but that came to an end with the prospect of having to extend it to black people, which apparently was an insupportable idea.

Stockholm has an awesome program just like you're describing, of course the wait time to get an apartment is 15 years.

Citation please.

https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20160517-this-is-one-city-where-youll-never-find-a-home

https://qz.com/264418/why-its-nearly-impossible-to-rent-an-apartment-in-stockholm/

Stockholm? Hahaha. Any success stories closer to home? How is density working out in Manhattan?

Anonymous wrote:

The densification posts are all GGW talking talking points. They even reference GGW blog. At the end of the day after the smoke clears, the only people interested in the massive building push are the city council, the GGW crowd and the crowd that has been beat into thinking it is racist to not build more housing.

Remind me how people get to be on the city council? What's the process?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

GGW is not going for any of these. At most, 1-2 bedroom small units. That's what they want to put up in place of single family homes and duplexes, many with 2-3 bedrooms like you want. Get it? You are better off moving into a transitional neighborhood (like you did before) and buying the home you seek.

What's with the fixation on Greater Greater Washington? It's a blog. They're not building anything, they're not in charge of anything, they're not making the decisions.

they are lobbyists with a massive "in" with DC govt who impact policy in an oversized way. they are very wiggly about any kind of scrutiny of their proposals, great at masking their goals under altruism. and kind of awful.

Lobbyists, huh. Hang on just a second...

https://efiler.bega.dc.gov/LRRSearch

let's see now...

Graves, Horton, Askew & Jenkins, LLC
Greater Washington Board of Trade

...nope, not seeing them there.

Maybe you should file a complaint?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

GGW is not going for any of these. At most, 1-2 bedroom small units. That's what they want to put up in place of single family homes and duplexes, many with 2-3 bedrooms like you want. Get it? You are better off moving into a transitional neighborhood (like you did before) and buying the home you seek.

What's with the fixation on Greater Greater Washington? It's a blog. They're not building anything, they're not in charge of anything, they're not making the decisions.

they are lobbyists with a massive "in" with DC govt who impact policy in an oversized way. they are very wiggly about any kind of scrutiny of their proposals, great at masking their goals under altruism. and kind of awful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

GGW is not going for any of these. At most, 1-2 bedroom small units. That's what they want to put up in place of single family homes and duplexes, many with 2-3 bedrooms like you want. Get it? You are better off moving into a transitional neighborhood (like you did before) and buying the home you seek.

What's with the fixation on Greater Greater Washington? It's a blog. They're not building anything, they're not in charge of anything, they're not making the decisions.

The densification posts are all GGW talking talking points. They even reference GGW blog. At the end of the day after the smoke clears, the only people interested in the massive building push are the city council, the GGW crowd and the crowd that has been beat into thinking it is racist to not build more housing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me get this correct. If we build supermarkets and amenities people want in Ward 8 actually want, "other" people will find those communities to be more desirable. They will then move into those communities.

Who's the "we" who will build these supermarkets and amenities?

Ummm...the city providing incentives to developers to build in under served areas of the community.

Happens all the time.

OK, I mean, I think that everybody is in favor of more amenities east of the river. Build more housing in the already-amenitized areas, create incentives to build amenities in the under-amenitized areas, win-win for the city and its residents.

Anonymous wrote:

GGW is not going for any of these. At most, 1-2 bedroom small units. That's what they want to put up in place of single family homes and duplexes, many with 2-3 bedrooms like you want. Get it? You are better off moving into a transitional neighborhood (like you did before) and buying the home you seek.

What's with the fixation on Greater Greater Washington? It's a blog. They're not building anything, they're not in charge of anything, they're not making the decisions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

GGW thinks large, family homes in the city are the ultimate enemy. Please keep up.

No, GGW thinks (to the extent that a blog with lots of contributors can have one opinion) that ZONING that REQUIRES LARGE ONE-HOUSEHOLD DWELLING UNITS AND DOES NOT ALLOW ANYTHING ELSE is the ultimate enemy.

With good reason.

Yes, and FWIW, I am the PP who talked about wanting to move into a larger home, and I'm not talking about a 3000 sq ft, five bedroom house with a yard and a garage. I'm talking about, like, a 3 bedroom condo or a row home with a small patio. One of the problems with a lot of the luxury housing is not that it's too small, it's that it is designed for childless people. Many of the luxury condo units in this city would be more usable if they were the same size but had an additional bedroom instead of more "entertainment space". So much of the new housing that gets built in DC is designed for single or DINK professionals who want lots of building amenities (doormen, pools, gyms) and don't even use their homes that much.

Some of these buildings could charge the same thing they do now, but eliminate some of the building amenities that push the condo fees up, and design apartments for small families, and it would actually help a lot. We need more housing, but we also need more of specific kinds of housing. I would put "luxury condo units for well-paid young professionals" at the bottom of the list simply because it is a market that is already being very well served in this area.

GGW is not going for any of these. At most, 1-2 bedroom small units. That's what they want to put up in place of single family homes and duplexes, many with 2-3 bedrooms like you want. Get it? You are better off moving into a transitional neighborhood (like you did before) and buying the home you seek.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me get this correct. If we build supermarkets and amenities people want in Ward 8 actually want, "other" people will find those communities to be more desirable. They will then move into those communities.

Who's the "we" who will build these supermarkets and amenities?

Ummm...the city providing incentives to developers to build in under served areas of the community.


Happens all the time.

Anonymous wrote:Let me get this correct. If we build supermarkets and amenities people want in Ward 8 actually want, "other" people will find those communities to be more desirable. They will then move into those communities.

Who's the "we" who will build these supermarkets and amenities?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

GGW thinks large, family homes in the city are the ultimate enemy. Please keep up.

No, GGW thinks (to the extent that a blog with lots of contributors can have one opinion) that ZONING that REQUIRES LARGE ONE-HOUSEHOLD DWELLING UNITS AND DOES NOT ALLOW ANYTHING ELSE is the ultimate enemy.

With good reason.

Yes, and FWIW, I am the PP who talked about wanting to move into a larger home, and I'm not talking about a 3000 sq ft, five bedroom house with a yard and a garage. I'm talking about, like, a 3 bedroom condo or a row home with a small patio. One of the problems with a lot of the luxury housing is not that it's too small, it's that it is designed for childless people. Many of the luxury condo units in this city would be more usable if they were the same size but had an additional bedroom instead of more "entertainment space". So much of the new housing that gets built in DC is designed for single or DINK professionals who want lots of building amenities (doormen, pools, gyms) and don't even use their homes that much.

Some of these buildings could charge the same thing they do now, but eliminate some of the building amenities that push the condo fees up, and design apartments for small families, and it would actually help a lot. We need more housing, but we also need more of specific kinds of housing. I would put "luxury condo units for well-paid young professionals" at the bottom of the list simply because it is a market that is already being very well served in this area.

Let me get this correct. If we build supermarkets and amenities people want in Ward 8 actually want, "other" people will find those communities to be more desirable. They will then move into those communities.

You are worried that they will then turn to the Ward 8 residents and offer them money for their homes. What they would then do with that money I suppose would be mystery.

Meanwhile the previously "poorer" community now has all of these new amenities that attracted new residents who are now putting their kids in the half empty schools and this is a huge problem because...well...I am not sure really.

Now the area becomes trendy and more people want to move in and offer more money to the long term residents and I suppose they might sell (not sure why but they might)

So help me out here. This is easy and doable today, but those initial houses would not sell for as much as Ward 3 homes. So we go without helping the Ward 8 residents because we simply cannot make as much money.

And we tell the world that we don't build in Ward 8 because that would potentially displace Ward 8 residents who might sell their homes. And we use the ugly word "gentrification" to justify doing nothing because that makes us feel better about ourselves.

Great plan GGW.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There isn’t a great gov’t example of completely fixing the problem.

But HUD and subsidized affordable housing DOES improve the situation.

But our housing shortage is so severe we need to try everything: build, rollback zoning, Section 8 subsidized housing, affordable rules, LIHTC subsidized housing.

We need to do everything. DC should be trying it all.

Do we have a housing shortage in America, or a shortage of very cheap housing in expensive neighborhoods? Just want to be clear

You need to look at what makes a neighborhood expensive. In the DC area, its: quality public schools, proximity to metro, walkability, quality of housing stock, proximity to amenities (grocery stores and other convenient retail). Interestingly, crime and safety are not as correlative as you might think. Many of the most expensive neighborhoods in DC proper have a lot of crime (Shaw and Navy Yard being the two that come to mind fastest).

So you miss the point if you interpret this as just people wanting cheap housing in expensive neighborhoods. What's actually happening is that people want access to shared amenities, including taxpayer funded ones like schools, public transportation, and walk-friendly streetscaping. And even the ones that aren't public funded (decent houses, nearby grocery stores) are pretty basic needs.

So yes, there should be cheaper housing in our "expensive" neighborhoods, because you shouldn't have to be wealthy to gain access to some of this stuff. That's why people push for greater housing density, so that these amenities are genuinely shared among different socioeconomic classes.

And this applies in the city and in the suburbs. It's just easier to accomplish in the city where people don't fight density quite as much (they still fight it, but it's harder to argue against). But even in suburbs, we should have more socioeconomically diverse neighborhoods clustered around public goods and amenities. It would be more efficient AND more just.

Is it impossible to build this stuff in the communities that deserve it and want it?

Why can't Anacostia have these things? Seems easier than building a lot of "cheap" housing in other areas and then asking those people to move from their homes.

You have to do both, actually. Otherwise, what happens is that the capital investment in neighborhoods like Anacostia leads to an influx of, first, young professionals, and then wealthier people. The people who currently live there start getting priced out, the nature of the neighborhood changes, and then the COL goes way up. And while, yes, you now have another nice neighborhood for wealthy people to live in, you still have nowhere for middle and working class families to live.

So you have to intentionally build and invest in affordable housing. You need somewhere for people who make under 100k a year to live, and you need this places to not be segregated because that leads to slumlords and concentrations of crime.

Sorry, but you can't get around it. If you sort people by socioeconomic status, you will inevitably wind up with resource hoarding among the wealthiest residents. You can't go build some working class utopia in a segregated part of town, because the minute it looks appealing at all, the wealthy will come in and take it.

It's called transitional neighborhoods and planning them smartly--with mixed income housing, tenant buyouts of redeveloped apartment buildings, tax breaks for teachers and police, homestead act. DC has plenty, and Anacostia could be one more. There is no way to stop people from selling their homes if the price rises--that's a choice, but you can certainly have rent control units and ways to make it affordable to stay (homestead act again).

sure, but don't be shocked when developers don't want to be saddled with rent control and choose to either build luxury or not at all and don't be surprised when building owners have no incentive to make improvements because there's no point with rent control

I'm not surprised, just like I'm not surprised that GGW is funded by developers and purely profit driven. The best bet for this city is gradual gentrification with set-asides and protections and programs for existing residents (not new ones), and there is plenty of space left to do it in.