Development
Affordable housing advocates should talk about land use... and land use advocates need to talk about affordability
When discussing housing affordability, there are 2 groups of advocates who are constantly talking past each other. Affordable housing groups do not engage with the economic arguments for building more housing, while proponents of expanding the housing supply don't spend enough time thinking about how to ensure that an increased supply benefits everyone.
Photo by FredoAlvarez on Flickr.
This week, Lydia DePillis critiqued affordable housing advocates for only talking about public programs that help lower-income people afford housing.
[A]ffordable housing shouldn't be all about setting prices artificially low— it's also about letting builders build the amount of housing this city needs.
I asked the author of the report, Jenny Reed, whether she'd thought about the land use aspect of affordable housing. She said that she's interested in itDePillis wonders if this partly stems from a cultural divide; affordable housing advocates may not want to stand on the same side as developers. I suspect there's another cultural divide as well: folks in the affordable housing movement don't seem to be as comfortable talking in economic-speak.— mentioning New York City's consideration of changing its zoning to allow for micro-apartments, which would be useful in D.C. as well — but hasn't done much research. It's time to do the research. You can't pretend to have a holistic housing strategy without addressing one of the biggest reasons why we don't have more of it.
Just subsidizing housing doesn't solve the problem
On the one side, we have a group of people, like Matt Yglesias and Ryan Avent, explaining rising housing prices based on economics. In DC, zoning and federal laws limit the supply of housing. Demand has risen, and therefore prices are going up.
If you give one group of people money to afford that housing, it only means that the recipients can now outbid someone else, but you've just substituted one group of residents for another. A city could simply redistribute housing from the rich to the poor (at considerable expense), these folks say, or it could grow the pool of housing so that both sets of aspiring residents can live here.
Affordable housing groups have not engaged with this argument on the economic plane. They make compelling emotional arguments about people who can't afford to stay in their neighborhoods, and there's a strong case to make that completely segregating society into rich places and poor places doesn't make for very healthy communities. But none of these arguments fundamentally address the supply-and-demand argument.
Just building housing doesn't solve it either
Avent, Yglesias, Ed Glaeser and others recommend that cities relax restrictions so that property owners can build more housing. The principle of supply and demand would suggest that the prices of housing would then decline.
We absolutely should add more housing. It's the right thing to do, and it's good for DC economically; more residents means a stronger tax base, more patrons for local businesses, and more.
But just as government programs on their own won't fix the affordability crisis, neither will just building more housing.
Image from Wikipedia.
The problem with "just build more" is that there is unmet demand at most levels of the spectrum today, including at the top end. Understandably, most property owners want to build the most lucrative housing they can, which means that new construction generally satisfies the top end of the market first.
If one could wave a magic wand and create massive new housing instantly, the entire market might get saturated and everyone could find housing. But that's not realistic. We're not going to abolish zoning tomorrow, and shouldn't. Building takes time, and developers need to find financing, which is very limited, Yglesias notes.
Also, it costs money to build housing. At some price point, it's not worth it to build an extra unit. The taller buildings get, the higher that point. In cities with lots of empty land, this is what "affordable housing" program are: subsidies to build a building in a place where the market would not build any housing on its own.
DC has some of that land east of the river, but residents there understandably feel that they've already accommodated more than their share of lower-income housing. If one goal of affordable housing policy is to create multi-income communities, then putting more affordable housing in the poorest parts of the city doesn't help.
Where can both sides agree?
This is why inclusionary zoning was, and is, a great policy. It raised the cap on housing construction in places with significant demand and high housing prices, but forced at least that small increment to satisfy some demand at various points on the price curve. In practice, though, inclusionary zoning can make at most a very small dent in the overall problem.
DePillis concludes, "[Building more housing] should be a place where the two sides make common cause with one another." We do need economists and affordable housing advocates make common cause. Just saying, as some commenters have, that everyone outside the top earners should just move to Bowie is not a housing policy. It'll lead to greater segregation and ultimately greater conflict between rich and poor. It creates terrible transportation and land use problems, as the people least able to afford it have to drive the farthest and commute the longest. It's simply unfair.
"We just need to crank up the government subsidies" isn't the answer. "Just eliminate all restrictions on building and let the market sort it out" isn't, either. It's not clear what the right answer is, but we need affordable housing groups thinking about economics and economists thinking about human factors to figure it out.
 | David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater.   |
Comments
- Bikeshare is a gateway to private biking, not competition
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- Long-term closures: A solution to single-tracking?
- Metro policy for refunds after delays falls short, riders say
- PG planners propose bold new smart growth future
- Prince George's County struggles to get trails right
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
(and preemptively @Oboe - no this is not ONLY a DC issue, it is front and center in City of Alexandria now, and is part of the debate in Arlington, and even a little bit in Fairfax county, wrt to the route 1 corridor for example - BUT DC is one place that could especially benefit from overcoming the class divisions created by this disconnect, which accounts for at least some of the resistance to positive change)
by AWalkerInTheCity on May 10, 2012 10:41 am • link • report
Historically, much of our affordable housing has come from over building in boom times where by the excess "luxury" units get downgraded to affordable, but I agree, this shouldn't be the only answer. As to your point about movine to Bowie, let's think about that. What's stopping middle class residents from moving into the still large swaths of "affordable" DC neighborhoods? Crime.
I found affordable housing in Logan Circle 15 years ago when there was a lot of crime there. Why wouldn't that argument work for neighborhoods closer in than Bowie? If we put the same amount of energy in dealing with helping fatherless families and fixing decrepit schools as we do in spreading democracy in the middle east, we'd be a much stronger and fairer society. We don't chose what circumstances we're born in, and you can only have a fair race if everybody has shoes to run in.
by Thayer-D on May 10, 2012 10:45 am • link • report
I am curious though, and please correct me if I am wrong, but why is the solution for low-income families making housing affordable to purchase? Should there not be a focus on making rental units affordable, allowing low-income families to save, like everyone else, to purchase property at the market price?
by cmc on May 10, 2012 10:48 am • link • report
And you don't find macro by yourself.
Now, as a policy goal, I think you bring some good points. But what I am struggling with is as a city -- or a region -- why do we want more affordable housing? DC in particular really benefits by moving the poor black people out to PG county (there are no poor white people in this city besides interns). I don't think prices have gotten to NYC or SF levels, which start to deter people from coming in. And it isn't clear that the type of job mix we have here is going to stop that. NYC got priced out of affordable about 30 years ago, SF about 20. But they have a lot of value (facebook billionares and finance). We are limited in the numebr of law firm partners -- hell, even law firm associates.
by charlie on May 10, 2012 10:48 am • link • report
The only thing it's missing is a discussion on filtering:
http://www.austincontrarian.com/austincontrarian/2008/06/filtering.html
by Tyler on May 10, 2012 10:53 am • link • report
It'll also take a rise in wages and serious commitments to improving transportation infrastructure. However we should forge ahead on all of these and not hinge on a commitment of one to build another.
by Canaan on May 10, 2012 10:54 am • link • report
A physicist, a chemist, and an economist are stuck on an island. Their only food is tuna inside tuna cans, but they have no way of opening them. The physicist suggest they climb up the tallest tree and drop the cans on a rock, but that doesn't work. The chemist suggest they heat the cans in fire until they burst, but that doesn't work. Then economist says his idea "First, assume we have a can opener..."
by MW on May 10, 2012 10:56 am • link • report
Great point with the filtering comment. It made me think of the recent articles (City Paper, WaPo) on the work UIP does with older apartment buildings.
by JS on May 10, 2012 11:19 am • link • report
BUT, there are (at least) two major problems with this. First, crime and schools. I wish DCPS would work with DCHD or other agencies to pick some neighborhoods to focus on; they could create some really awesome mixed-income housing and some great magnet schools (not charter schools, which take from the whole District, but ones like Oyster-Adams, which has an in-boundary preference). If they put it near a Metro I'd be the first in line to look at a 2br.
Second, there's a sentiment from some residents in these areas that's in opposition to the one cited in the article: many of them are just as upset at the prospect of any luxury units as they would be at the prospect of an all-affordable development. Just look at today's Post article about the future of Ward 5, which starts off with a long-time resident looking at new condos and saying that a) it is impossible to raise kids in a condo and b) the new development is a racist endeavor specifically planned to remove people like him from the neighborhood.
by sb on May 10, 2012 11:27 am • link • report
It's no wonder people know so little.
by Jazzy on May 10, 2012 11:46 am • link • report
One aspect not touched though in the report is 'quality of life' and the fairness (or actually inequity) in expecting people to lower their quality of life to accommodate others wanting an affordable place. Specifically, I'm talking about OP's recent efforts to upzone areas so that more people can be stuffed on to the already rare popular places. If Lydia is talking about rezoning the wilderness so that it can provide cheap land to build consequently cheap housing (and buildings), then fine. But if she's talking about Stealing from Peter to Pay Paul (i.e., downgrading the quality of life for existing neighborhoods just so you can cram more people into the already popular spots), then that's a different story.
by Lance on May 10, 2012 11:53 am • link • report
Maybe I'm being dense here, but what are you referring to by the "lack of infrastructure to maintain affordable (subsidized) housing"?
And this has been discussed to death on GGW, but MPDU requirements and rent control measures ultimately increase market-rate rents. Why do we insist on these policies again?
by Tyler on May 10, 2012 12:01 pm • link • report
DC is not really a liberal city.)
by Jazzy on May 10, 2012 12:02 pm • link • report
"One aspect not touched though in the report is 'quality of life' and the fairness (or actually inequity) in expecting people to lower their quality of life to accommodate others wanting an affordable place."
And of course that is inequity only when its expected of townhouse owners in DuPont Circle, not when its expected of rural residents in Fauqier or Western Loudoun, whose desire to maintain their own communities and ways of life SHOULD be forfeited to accommmodate affordable housing that is "not sprawl"
by AWalkerInTheCity on May 10, 2012 12:03 pm • link • report
by Tyler on May 10, 2012 12:04 pm • link • report
Housing in the far-flung wilderness areas is not "cheap" or "affordable" if residents have to pay way more to transport themselves to jobs, appointments, etc. And they do have to pay far more for transportation in those areas. Sprawl is not cheap in terms of household expenditures nor in terms of infrastructure costs.
As for the following:
OP's recent efforts to upzone areas so that more people can be stuffed on to the already rare popular places.
You make these vague concerned statements that imply that OP has a plan to raze your beloved Georgetown and Dupont Circle and replace those neighborhoods with blocks made up of 10 story apartment buildings. This is untrue. Really they want to allow more of the less-popular places to be built up like Dupont Circle currently is, because that's the densest part of the city. If you took the time to actually look up while walking around Dupont you might notice that it is not a neighborhood of uniformly quaint rowhouses but a mix of rowhouses and apartment buildings. That is what we should want everywhere in the city that can sustain it.
But as AWalkerInTheCity puts it, God forbid we change anything where the rich live, let's go build everything in the "empty" space we have out in small-town America!
by MLD on May 10, 2012 12:10 pm • link • report
It's considered progressive everywhere else but doesn't dare be spoken of in DC.
by Tom Coumaris on May 10, 2012 12:21 pm • link • report
And this has been discussed to death on GGW, but MPDU requirements and rent control measures ultimately increase market-rate rents. Why do we insist on these policies again?
We must both increase total housing supply and preserve some set-asides for affordable housing. Total housing supply increases will help lower prices for all. Rent control measures and set-asides for affordable units help keep lower income families closer to jobs and in transit-accessible areas where their transportation costs are lower for both the household and the community. Set-asides for affordable units should be aimed at preserving some portion of the affordable housing that existed previously in the parcels to be occupied by new construction. E.g. if you tear down a bunch of older housing to build something new you should have to replace some of that housing with affordable.
I have seen little in the way of research that says that DC's rent control (which is honestly not that restrictive) or affordable set-asides have a huge impact on housing prices. I'd be happy to see something that says otherwise though. I suspect that the lack of supply has more to do with high housing prices. DC builds WAY less housing than it should; not even enough to keep up with current population growth and certainly less than demand.
by MLD on May 10, 2012 12:28 pm • link • report
- http://www.csiss.org/classics/content/26
Succession theory sets the basis for the arguments against "gentrification" because it presumes that neighborhood development is always one way -- poor people move in, raise their circumstances, move out, and replaced with a new group of poor people, who repeat the process. It never presumed that people of means would be attracted to/would want to stay in the center of the region. (The presumption in the theory is that the better neighborhoods are located outside of the core.) Although this was in the 1920s and the presumption probably was that industrial uses would remain in the center of the region also, so that residential housing in the core would be less attractive because it was adjacent to nuisances.
"Filtration" was sanctioned by HUD in the 1960s as the way to bring better housing to the urban poor. (The discussion in _Building Neighborhood Confidence_ introduced me to the concept.)
by Richard Layman on May 10, 2012 12:39 pm • link • report
Also, it costs money to build housing. At some price point, it's not worth it to build an extra unit. The taller buildings get, the higher that point. In cities with lots of empty land, this is what "affordable housing" program are: subsidies to build a building in a place where the market would not build any housing on its own.
I don't think that's the real issue--that eventually the marginal contribution from building add'l units = zero, although at some point it is.
The issue is that because it costs money to build housing, and there are financing, approval, and other constraints, that it's the most sensible decision to build for the most expensive/successful part of the market, which usually is for higher income housing demand segments. (Years ago I organized the files of a wealthy couple that did a bit of property development on the side. I was surprised that the profit margins on new construction were more paltry than I expected, but given all the costs--buying land, financing, the time it takes to construct a building, selling it, paying commission, etc.--I shouldn't have been.)
That's the policy foundation for inclusionary zoning btw, that developers are incentivized to build high(er) end housing for the most part, and lower income segments are under-served.
by Richard Layman on May 10, 2012 12:45 pm • link • report
I'm with you so far...
DC has some of that land east of the river, but residents there understandably feel that they've already accommodated more than their share of lower-income housing. If one goal of affordable housing policy is to create multi-income communities, then putting more affordable housing in the poorest parts of the city doesn't help.
I'm confused. Are you conflating "affordable housing" with "poor people housing"? Because that seems to be what DePillis is critiquing. You can't put workforce housing in the poorest parts of the city, because people for whom that housing is targeted won't *live* in the poorest parts of the city. That's because extremely poor areas of the city have problems with crime, etc...
We have plenty of housing for rich people. We can debate whether we have enough housing for very poor people (we certainly have a lot--more than the suburbs per capita--and no, "there are still poor people who want housing" is not conclusive evidence).
But we have nowhere near enough housing for middle-income earners. *That's* the real crisis in DC. But no one's advocating for them.
by oboe on May 10, 2012 1:32 pm • link • report
by Dizzy on May 10, 2012 1:39 pm • link • report
We do have representatives/employees of the city that don't get fired. They live in Maryland. Why, you ask? Well, because you can't raise a child in a condo! Plus you'll always get more house for your money in Largo.
by oboe on May 10, 2012 1:56 pm • link • report
The difference is that when someone out in the rural hinterlands sells their 100 acre parcel to a developer to build a new community, it's their choice and their gain (i.e., profit). When a developer in DC buys the rowhouse next door to you and doubles the height and width of it to squeeze 3 families into it instead of the 1 that had been before, it's also his/her choice and his/her gain, except that you're stuck with externalities such as noise, lost sunlight, etc. which the rural neighbors of the 100 acre tract don't bear in any likewse proportion.
by Lance on May 10, 2012 2:06 pm • link • report
It might just be me, but I very much doubt that a claim that rural greenfield development generates fewer externalities than urban redevelopment or infill would hold up to scrutiny.
by jack lecou on May 10, 2012 2:11 pm • link • report
No, it's not just you. I almost choked on my coffee when I read that.
by jyindc on May 10, 2012 2:28 pm • link • report
+1 to this.
by andrew on May 10, 2012 3:19 pm • link • report
And Ward 5 and much of Ward 4 is wide-open affordable middle class that smart people are flocking to.
by Tom Coumaris on May 10, 2012 3:38 pm • link • report
A cynic might say that if you let poor people live wherever they like, you can't control where they live (and vote). The right to the serfs conveys with the title to the land, just as it has since the earliest days of feudalism.
A world in which people in Ward 8 get to choose whether to live in Barry Farms, or to rent a three bedroom house in the suburbs is a world in which Marion Barry is out of a job.
Okay, that's a little too cynical.
by oboe on May 10, 2012 3:48 pm • link • report
by oboe on May 10, 2012 3:49 pm • link • report
That's not too cynical.
by Tom Coumaris on May 10, 2012 3:59 pm • link • report
For years and years I have argued that by serving as the region's catchment area for the most low income residents (and dealing with low income residents should be on a regional-state-national basis, not one foisted only on individual localities), DC provides a kind of quality of life subsidy to the suburbs.
by Richard Layman on May 10, 2012 4:20 pm • link • report
by Cheryl Cort on May 10, 2012 5:17 pm • link • report
That's basically what Section 8 (or whatever it's called now, I forgot) is. It's a voucher that can be used to pay rent almost anywhere, and it helps many low-income families move out of the city. Of course, the voucher can only pay for so much rent, so they usually end up in certain neighborhoods, which doesn't really solve the problem so much as move it somewhere else.
by dan reed! on May 10, 2012 5:21 pm • link • report
Also, most DC public housing is not Section 8 and doesn't have any portability at all.
by Tom Coumaris on May 10, 2012 6:08 pm • link • report
But then there are many very low-income households that simply will never be able to afford a market-rate unit. In these cases, the lack of affordable housing is not a market failure, but simply an income problem. Glaeser does support government intervention in these cases. He prefers using tax policy (like the EITC), but thinks housing choice vouchers are an acceptable remedy.
I think this supports Linda's point that both solutions are necessary. It just adds a little nuance to which solution is connected to which problem.
by Daniel on May 11, 2012 9:37 am • link • report
I just want to clarify, that higher buildings “should not be” one of the core solutions for affordable housing as DePyllis clearly favors in her writing. Multi-family building construction costs, are much higher for concrete buildings (6+ stories tall), than for wood-frame buildings (2-5 stories tall). Developers do not profit from spending more in building concrete multi-story buildings and having to price (what I believe is a low percentage) for affordable housing units.
The economics driver, is profit. Affordable housing driver, is inclusion and social justice. Taller buildings (higher density, land use zoning, etc) is not the best solution. Smaller units for young renters (strategically located) can calm demand and provide city consumer revenue.
Let's talk salaries when talking economics, I just don't get the 100K comments? probably being cynical. But salaries have not increased at the same rate as rents in the city; ie: Arlington, only a certain income level can afford to live in hip Arlington. I wish salaries were analyzed in the affordable housing economics discussion. It's easy to go for the "old" it's a Land Use solution, higher is better. Guess what? we have been talking about it and are still waiting for something new.
I would hate DC to become NYC. I stand behind that statement. Not because I'm a New York hater, but because I believe every city is unique. If we want to look at case studies let's look to the West, SF, San Diego, etc. CA recently ended TIF's and I can't wait to see how it works out for them. Affordable housing can be resolved through out-of-the box policy and Government should enforce affordable housing. As a DC all time resident, I thank GOD for rent control.
by gpshortcut on May 11, 2012 1:01 pm • link • report
Seems like we could do so much more before we go ruining our unique skyline becasue some of us wish we where living in New York. You don't kow what you have until it's lost. BTW, attitudes like this...
"One aspect not touched though in the report is 'quality of life' and the fairness (or actually inequity) in expecting people to lower their quality of life to accommodate others wanting an affordable place."...
aren't helping much.
Why do we HAVE to raise the height limit again?
by Thayer-D on May 11, 2012 9:15 pm • link • report
by Chris Bradford on May 11, 2012 10:55 pm • link • report
by Ocean Railroader on May 12, 2012 2:37 am • link • report
by Tyler on May 10, 2012 12:04 pm
Having Lydia DePillis talk about affordable housing is like having Tom Coburn on talking about ways to preserve public funding for DC transit.
Oil and water.
by Jazzy on May 12, 2012 8:31 am • link • report
The MoCo guy said a lot of things I agree with, with the exception that DC has a good tenant advocacy infrastructure. It does not. Perhaps it used to. But no longer. He references organizationS. Well, there is a grand total of one advocacy organization with any teeth. Housing counseling services is good, but they are not so much an affordable housing advocate - they deal on a case by case basis for the most part, and thank goodness for them. They are good.
People who look for and want affordable housing AND decent conditions (and there are many many people in DC, perhaps even on this blog, who think if you have affordable housing you should not expect decent living conditions) used to have a semi ally in Jim Graham. Perhaps Ted Loza was his link to the Latino community, and now that Ted is gone, Graham's profile on affordable housing issues seems to have been diminished. Tying housing to a particular nationality or region of people seems sort of lazy, but he did seem to do that. Still, it was something.
Mont County and NoVa do seem to be nightmare situations in terms of tenant advocacy, and I feel for those who are fighting there.
I appreciated what he said about not treating housing pricing like beer and wine.
No follow-up by Marc after Matt, the Montgomery County housing advocate, details the horror of living without renter protection. You can be evicted at any time! No follow-up.
The researcher said over the last decade, we (DC) lost 30,000 African Americans and gained 50,000 white migrants into the city. My question would be to compare the stability of each group. How many of that 50,000 are still here? And then, for how long, how many years, had the 30,000 been here before they left?
Are there ANY journalists who are conversant in housing issues? Lydia "walking sucks" DePillis just isn't the one.
by Jazzy on May 12, 2012 9:49 am • link • report
by Posted by My Industrial Injury Claims.com on May 12, 2012 10:43 am • link • report
I just want to clarify, that higher buildings “should not be” one of the core solutions for affordable housing as DePyllis clearly favors in her writing. Multi-family building construction costs, are much higher for concrete buildings (6+ stories tall), than for wood-frame buildings (2-5 stories tall). Developers do not profit from spending more in building concrete multi-story buildings and having to price (what I believe is a low percentage) for affordable housing units.
This misses the point of the argument. The purpose of adding supply via more expensive and dense building techniques isn't so that those new units can be the affordable ones (though some of them can certainly be set aside for that), but so that the overall supply of housing in the region can increase beyond these current constraints. It's a long term play. Today's high end new apts will be tomorrow's affordable ones.
The economics driver, is profit. Affordable housing driver, is inclusion and social justice. Taller buildings (higher density, land use zoning, etc) is not the best solution. Smaller units for young renters (strategically located) can calm demand and provide city consumer revenue.
I don't think that's right. The development driver is profit, not economics. Economics sets the rules that we all play by.
I would put it this way - in the face of the strong demand here in DC, increasing the supply of all housing is a necessary but not a sufficient condition to creating affordable housing.
I would hate DC to become NYC. I stand behind that statement. Not because I'm a New York hater, but because I believe every city is unique.
I just got back from a trip to NY. Don't worry, DC isn't anywhere close to becoming New York.
That said, you can't just ignore the intense demand for real estate here without adjusting the supply upwards.
by Alex B. on May 12, 2012 10:55 am • link • report
And while I was in San Francisco for a couple weeks I noticed ads for nice designer condos available to lower-mid incomes only for under $150K. Wow.
by Tom Coumaris on May 12, 2012 11:01 am • link • report
I had this Ho scale train set at home that was once covered in one two to story houses and other two to three story buildings and over the last few years have slowlly replaced them with high rises and small skycrapers. It might be about time that some sections of the city and a lot of these counties start consdering replacing some of their two and three story tall buildings with some new highrises to make up the space in the city. In that there are some really nice places off of Interstate 95 and 495 that would make great places for skycrapers.
by Ocean Railroader on May 12, 2012 3:51 pm • link • report
In DC at least the first floor retail has to be all masonry.
by Tom Coumaris on May 12, 2012 7:13 pm • link • report
<<The purpose of adding supply via more expensive and dense building techniques … so that the overall supply of housing in the region can increase beyond these current constraints. It's a long term play. Today's high end new apts will be tomorrow's affordable ones......I would put it this way - in the face of the strong demand here in DC, increasing the supply of all housing is a necessary but not a sufficient condition to creating affordable housing.>>
It seems you have an elitist logic with regards to increasing housing supply for all. Let me clarify my point, IZ (http://dhcd.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dhcd/publication/attachments/IZImplementationSummaryandTimeline.pdf) is based on % amount of units, and higher (taller buildings) increases the height, but not necessarily the number of units. Affordable housing units are a nuisance for developers. As architecture staff I had to lower the design value when drawing unit plans. It was heart breaking for me; take out kitchen island, take out office nook, no balconies, limit windows, and yes units must be next to freight elevator, and with an alley view. It was very unpleasant as the daughter of an immigrant, who couldn’t afford even that unit. So much that I preferred designing large-scale community developments, which was just as heart breaking at times. Thus forgive me but I choose not to have a “high-end” point of view.
So you are for increasing supply for economic growth (development) sake, but not for current affordable housing needs and end users? See DC has been around for a very long time. (I’m sure you can’t argue that). Long ago’s Ward 3’s high-end new apartments have NOT become today’s affordable ones. “Development” in DC has vastly been in the form of new (as-of-right density) construction. Columbia Heights, did not look like that 10 years ago, neither did Navy Yard SE DC (during my early teenage club raving days). What you proposing already happened. Housing supply was increased by necessity, and unfortunately it did not fix the problem. Believe me as a fellow planner I was at community meetings begging for more density, more development, and good design. I was all in. But, it has not proven to be the right solution. Scratch and let’s think of a new one.
The conversation should revolve around fixes to issues that have not been resolved such as income equality, enforcement of regulations, and yes, perhaps revising the percentage of IZ (around since 1970, and only regulated in DC after 2005 we can thank Fenty for that, if I’m not mistaken). Let’s look at IZ since it’s just a baby, let’s look at why the huge income gap in DC. Let’s look at designing equitable smaller footprints for all; let’s do something different. BTW, development without finance (economics) cannot occur, unless there is a pot of gold somewhere in DC free to use. Economics is often viewed as a science ”setting rules”. That is becoming old as well. I do agree Economic sets the rules for growth, but after the housing boom fiasco, I don’t want that type of growth. As an urban planner do you?
The NYC, comment I find it condescending. NYC is amazing, an urban planners dream. I do worry not because it could happen. But because in the age of blogging and twitter, irresponsible mass communication can easily create unintended consequences that will do more harm than good. Thanks for your comment. I look forward to reading your own innovative ideas on your blog.
by gpshortcut on May 14, 2012 4:54 pm • link • report
by gpshortcut on May 14, 2012 5:03 pm • link • report
Whoa, whoa.
So you are for increasing supply for economic growth (development) sake, but not for current affordable housing needs and end users?
No, not at all. Please read my comments again. My point is that no matter what we do, increasing the supply is constant. I wrote this: "I would put it this way - in the face of the strong demand here in DC, increasing the supply of all housing is a necessary but not a sufficient condition to creating affordable housing."
IZ, for example, won't work without substantial increases in density.
Long ago’s Ward 3’s high-end new apartments have NOT become today’s affordable ones. “Development” in DC has vastly been in the form of new (as-of-right density) construction.
But Ward 3's old apartments are cheaper than housing that's been recently invested in - either new construction or recent renovation.
Likewise, filtering doesn't have to take place just within one area. More density there in the wealthy area would reduce price pressure in other areas.
Bottom line - we're facing intense demand, and we need more supply.
I do agree Economic sets the rules for growth, but after the housing boom fiasco, I don’t want that type of growth. As an urban planner do you?
Sure. The housing boom didn't really boom that much here in terms of units. The housing bubble was a bubble of finance, a bubble of mortgage debt. We're actually undersupplied for housing in this region - not what you'd expect post-boom. That's why housing prices here haven't really come down at all since the peak of the bubble, like they have in other places around the country.
by Alex B. on May 14, 2012 6:07 pm • link • report
Add a Comment