Amazon killing off the retail store is like saying the car will kill off main street. Telecomuting was going to kill off the office until managers realized that in many industries, the synergy of co-habitation adds to the bottom line. There'll be changes, but retain is still fleshing out the internet shopping revolution, but human nature should never be underestimated.

by Thayer-D on Jul 13, 2012 8:59 am • link • report

allowing DC special elections between 70 and 174 days after a vacancy, giving more flexaibility

Well, what will happen in reality is that it will give more time, and hence a longer election season. That is never a good time.

DC's marriage laws forbid people who aren't clergy or judges from officiating at weddings.

Locally, Arlington is the easiest place to get married. Go to the Courthouse, pick a marriage license with two valid IDs (sadly, opposite sex couples only), and cross the street to one of the lawyers on 14 St, pay $50 and be done in 45 minutes. I doubt you can do it faster in Las Vegas.

Amazon killing off the retail store is like saying the car will kill off main street.

Ask Borders about that.

by Jasper on Jul 13, 2012 9:12 am • link • report

for places with strong retail, the impact won't be as bad. However I can see that future places might have a problem or a bigger challenge when trying to create or revitalize districts because its no longer a field of dreams scenario. HOWEVER the key for this is density, even with speciality stores people will go to the one that is closest to them all things considered. Make it so that there are more people in the neighborhood and you'll be able to make sure that you have a good environment for a good business.

by drumz on Jul 13, 2012 9:13 am • link • report

Amazon's PR in full force as it looking at either a national internet sales tax or localities imposing their own taxes.

by charlie on Jul 13, 2012 9:13 am • link • report

Micro-housing is the last thing DC needs. DC should be focusing more on trying to develop for families, not just twenty-somethings and recent undergrads.

by Fitz on Jul 13, 2012 9:20 am • link • report

@Fitz

Micro-housing might would pressure on twenty-somethings and recent undergrads that currently rent 3+ bedroom houses and apartments as group homes.

by Alex B. on Jul 13, 2012 9:30 am • link • report

RE: Small units

ANC 6C voted this week to support variances for a 124-unit apartment building in NoMa at 1005 North Cap. Each apartment is about 300 sf, with bike parking inside and out, but zero car parking spots.

The developer is "Be the Change" and architect is SORG. This is designed as affordable at no more than 60% of AMI, with half of the units designated for formerly homeless Veterans.

by Tony Goodman on Jul 13, 2012 9:30 am • link • report

@ Fitz:DC should be focusing more on trying to develop for families, not just twenty-somethings and recent undergrads.

Why is that? Because DC treats treats undergrads so well fencing them in on campus?

by Jasper on Jul 13, 2012 9:51 am • link • report

Childless people pay much more in taxes than they receive in city services. I suspect families are a net loss to the city's budget.

by Steve S. on Jul 13, 2012 10:27 am • link • report

I don't see how allowing builders to build 275 SQ ft micro units would have a negative impact on families - for the most part that would be an alternative to building 600 sq ft units which arent going to draw families anyway.

OTOH I am skeptical of presenting micro units as an alternative to height. They are pretty demanding in terms of lifestyle, I think, and even if they are built many will pass them up (reasonably) and will either pass on walkable sustainable areas, or will go ahead and gentrify new areas. While some of the latter is inevitable and has benefits, if we want to mitigate the disruption of rapid gentrification, we need to add density (building height/volume)( not count on micro units

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 13, 2012 10:36 am • link • report

AMAZON: No deal is good that includes taxes. Amazon is making a deal with the devil on this one.

DAY 2: And still no call from GGW for Mayor Gray's resignation. So we overlook corruption now if the Mayor supports bike trails and trolleys? How does that make a 'greater' Washington?

by Pelham1861 on Jul 13, 2012 10:39 am • link • report

We talk about our fears that firms like Amazon will kill off retail business at the local level, but an increase in Amazon-type transactions will call for expansion and development of greater efficiencies in the logistics business, which could replace the lost jobs and revenues.

by ksu499 on Jul 13, 2012 10:40 am • link • report

@Pelham

I think this is a great solution. Amazon buyers should be paying tax every time. The fact that DC is still unable to get Amazon transactions taxed is quite unfortunate. Hopefully we get this process in DC, resulting in all Amazon transactions being taxed. Yes, this would hurt me, as I shop on Amazon quite a bit, but I am happy to pay my share.

by Kyle W on Jul 13, 2012 10:46 am • link • report

Has GGW ever editorialized in favor of any politician stepping down? I mean, there is a difference with vociferously disagreeing with Bob McDonnell and saying that he should step down.

And its not like the ethics problems have been ignored, they're mentioned and certainly debated in the comments moreso.

The primary focus of GGW is place-making, transit and urban policy and reforms stemming out of those, not necessarily campaign finance reform (though its important I just don't think it delegitimizes whats discussed here).

by drumz on Jul 13, 2012 10:55 am • link • report

@ AWalkerInTheCity:They are pretty demanding in terms of lifestyle

Starting adults do fine in them in Paris and London. I've visited a few friends that happily lived in very small places in Paris. One lived in an old maid's room of about 180 sq ft next to the Seine and the Ile St Louis. She had a room with a pull-out bed with two-pit kitchenette and a shower, but a shared toilet in the hallway. Another friend lived a bit larger with a semi-separated living and bedroom, next to the Centre Pompidou. He had the best commute imaginable: turn right out the door, walk by the Centre Pompidou, the Notre Dame, and arrive at work in 20 minutes without making a turn.

by Jasper on Jul 13, 2012 10:56 am • link • report

@Jasper - I doubt you can do it faster in Las Vegas. Maybe not faster, but you can get it done in Vegas by an Elvis impersonator (extra charge for "young" Elvis. True story!)

by Tina on Jul 13, 2012 10:56 am • link • report

We are Americans, living in an American social context.

I don't doubt some would choose them. But if we allow micro units, but discourage high rise and midrise units in neighborhoods where there is existing demand (which has been suggested by some here) I expect the result would the diversion of young people to the suburbs, while at the same time rapidly transforming existing areas inhabited by poor african americans, as is happening now, with accompanying social disruption and political resistance to change.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 13, 2012 11:02 am • link • report

The cognitive dissonance at GGW sometimes amazes me. People on here decry sprawl and it's negative affects on the region yet consistently fail to realize that it's driven by the desires and interests of families.

Micro-housing is a solution in search of a problem. DC already has adequate accommodations for young singles, which micro-housing would be the obvious target for. What DC doesn't have is adequate accommodations for non-wealthy families.

by Fitz on Jul 13, 2012 11:04 am • link • report

@Fitz

The rents of 1 BRs and 2 BRs climbing by 8-10% a year would disagree with you wholeheartedly.

by Kyle W on Jul 13, 2012 11:06 am • link • report

@Fitz

Please, do tell where to find this magical housing stock you speak of!

I suspect when you mean "young", you're referring to anyone under 35 - what this city is sorely lacking is housing stock for the 18 to 25 year old crowd (don't forget, not everyone goes to college).

If your retort is that they should be living in group homes from Petworth northwards, or Ward 5, then I have an economics lesson for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowding_out_%28economics%29

Plus, why would anyone care if there's this kind of development? No one's putting a gun to your head making you live there. Buncha grumpy old men, you are.

by Matthew B on Jul 13, 2012 11:12 am • link • report

Micro-housing is a solution in search of a problem.

As was the iPod and iPhone. That doesn't mean businesses shouldn't innovate and try new things. If businesses want to try building micro-housing (that doesn't have disproportionate externalities), government should step out of the way and allow them to succeed/fail on their own merit rather than stop them with unnecessary regulation.

by Falls Church on Jul 13, 2012 11:37 am • link • report

the alternatives to sprawl for those families that want it, will largely be in better designed suburbs - including SFHs on smaller lots and in better laid out suburbs (Kentlands style) and in townhouses, and for some in larger apartments - alts to SOV dependence will include carpooling, cycling (see the new FFX county bike plan) BRT, heavy rail via park and ride, cycling, or bus transfer, and in select places, light rail. I doubt the district of columbia will accommodate many of the families seeking an alternative to sprawl - and to the extent it does it will mostly be in neighborhoods where you will not find many micro units.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 13, 2012 11:47 am • link • report

@Awalker

But if we allow micro units, but discourage high rise and midrise units in neighborhoods where there is existing demand (which has been suggested by some here)

Who is pushing for this tradeoff?

The best policy should be yes, both. Allow micro units. Allow more development, period. I suspect there is a market for both. If not, no big deal in allowing those units in the first place.

by Alex B. on Jul 13, 2012 12:08 pm • link • report

Please, do tell where to find this magical housing stock you speak of!

You mean the ones all these people found?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/census-young-adults-are-responsible-for-most-of-dcs-growth-in-past-decade/2011/05/04/AFJz5LtF_story.html

by Fitz on Jul 13, 2012 12:32 pm • link • report

Opposition to the microunit thing is funny. There is definitely a market for it, and it would theoretically reduce the need for group houses.

For the solution to the families problem, I think that DC needs to seriously consider upzoning large parts of DC for townhouses. I'm not sure we're going to see large 1920s apartment houses, with ten-room suites for families.

by Neil Flanagan on Jul 13, 2012 12:33 pm • link • report

"Who is pushing for this tradeoff?"

Mr Tom Coumaris has suggested it in some of his comments, if I read him correctly. I don't know if that position goes beyond him.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 13, 2012 12:38 pm • link • report

@Fitz: DC already has adequate accommodations for young singles, which micro-housing would be the obvious target for.

I'm 27, just recently moved into a 1-BR. I have a 22 year-old unofficially living in my living room, because neither of us could afford to live in an apartment alone. Now, it's a nice area, so that is part of that. But there is definitely a market for micro-apartments in this city, and there is a need for them.

DC has become one of the trendy places to live, and has one of the better job markets. Single, under 30-somethings want to live in the city, and are willing to accept the sacrifices that come with close quarters in exchange for rent that would still be sky-high in almost any other city in the country, but less than the norm here.

Do we need more housing of all types, including for families? Yes. But that doesn't mean singles are doing well in this market.

by JW on Jul 13, 2012 12:42 pm • link • report

@Neil Flanagan: For the solution to the families problem, I think that DC needs to seriously consider upzoning large parts of DC for townhouses.

Agree completely. DC definitely could use more townhouses. When I saw the McMillan redevelopment plan, I remember thinking, why do we need apartments and offices here? Just fill the whole site with townhouses (I have no idea if that is financially viable or not, but there is a need for them in addition to more apartments).

by JW on Jul 13, 2012 12:47 pm • link • report

DC already has adequate accommodations for young singles, which micro-housing would be the obvious target for. What DC doesn't have is adequate accommodations for non-wealthy families.

1) Let me guess: You're neither young nor single.

2) Many of today's young singles are living (together) in accommodations that were designed for non-wealthy families.

by andrew on Jul 13, 2012 12:50 pm • link • report

Opposition to the microunit thing is funny. There is definitely a market for it, and it would theoretically reduce the need for group houses.

Need? The group homes are already there, using existing housing stock.

For the solution to the families problem, I think that DC needs to seriously consider upzoning large parts of DC for townhouses.

Yes, that's part of what I was getting at.

by Fitz on Jul 13, 2012 1:10 pm • link • report

I agree with the general sentiment re: young singles that seems to be prevailing in the last few comments. Habitable, small studios in the most desired areas of the city are very hard to come by. Your opinion may vary on if younger folks and singles "deserve" the chance to live in those neighborhoods or if they have to earn some promotions first, but if the pricing is right, wee spaces in the 275-350 square foot range would surely fill up quickly.

I know there were some prices on microstudios out in Seattle; what do we think a price point for those never-built ones at 6th and F NW would be? What if they were at 17th and Q? Connecticut and Macomb? 14th and U? I do worry about how costs could escalate given rising rents across the city.

by worthing on Jul 13, 2012 1:14 pm • link • report

1) Let me guess: You're neither young nor single.

Nope. I'm 30, been living here since I was 28 and before that I had been dating someone here and visiting on a bi-weekly basis since I was 22.

2) Many of today's young singles are living (together) in accommodations that were designed for non-wealthy families.

Yeah, I know, my fiancee lived in two such houses. There was nothing inadequate about it. In fact I don't know anyone who's lived in a group home or two that hasn't thoroughly enjoyed it.

Are you suggesting that because someone might not be able to rent or buy a place on their own that housing stock in inadequate?

by Fitz on Jul 13, 2012 1:19 pm • link • report

changing mcmillan from apts to ths would be downzoning, not upzoning. It might create more opportunities for families, but its too small to make a huge difference.

Upzoning would be changing SFH areas to THs. That would produce a larger political backlash than any of the densification measures now on the table. Even if it could be passed, I dont the economics would be that favorable - many DC SFHs are on small lots to begin with.

as for group houses, existing SFHs can be converted to group houes, and group houses can be converted back to houses for families

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 13, 2012 1:19 pm • link • report

"Yeah, I know, my fiancee lived in two such houses. There was nothing inadequate about it. In fact I don't know anyone who's lived in a group home or two that hasn't thoroughly enjoyed it.

Are you suggesting that because someone might not be able to rent or buy a place on their own that housing stock in inadequate"

I don't see the point to arguing about whats "inadequate" or what different people do or don't enjoy. If every young single person prefers a room in a group house to a micro unit, micro units will not be rented, and developers will not build them. many people seem to believe there will be a market for them. if some people move to them, that will mean fewer people in group houses, which will improve the economics of turning them back into homes for families. I do not see what the reason to NOT allow microunits is.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 13, 2012 1:23 pm • link • report

@drumz

Has GGW ever editorialized in favor of any politician stepping down? I mean, there is a difference with vociferously disagreeing with Bob McDonnell and saying that he should step down.

I don't know if it has editorialized in favor of a politician stepping down, but it has editorialized in favor of a politician NOT stepping down:

Grtr Grtr Washington‏ @ggwash

Vincent Gray should not resign.

8 Retweets
2:49 PM - 11 Jul 12via TweetDeck

by Dizzy on Jul 13, 2012 1:40 pm • link • report

That was a personal opinion and not GGW's editoral position.

by David Alpert on Jul 13, 2012 1:43 pm • link • report

I don't see the point to arguing about whats "inadequate" or what different people do or don't enjoy.

Yet you quoted and responded to my statement regarding whether DC has adequate accommodations for singles or families.

f some people move to them, that will mean fewer people in group houses, which will improve the economics of turning them back into homes for families.

Not necessarily because the young, single demo has already shown they are willing to move to DC without micro-housing.

I'm opposed to zoning for micro-housing because it serves a limited demo that has already readily and easily adapted to current housing stock. DC has great diversity but what it doesn't have a lot of is middle class families. It would be more desirable to zone for them in upcoming developments so that those who come here when they're 22 and 24 decide to stay here when they're 32, married and thinking about kids. Along with that comes the income tax revenues these people bring as they enter their prime earning years and the stability they bring to neighborhoods where they cannot move on a dime due to future children and other long term responsibilities.

I love DC's young vibe and I still enjoy it on a regular basis, but you start to see things slightly differently when you realize it's a lot more difficult to remain here when you're trying to address the needs and interests of a future family.

by Fitz on Jul 13, 2012 1:52 pm • link • report

Are you suggesting that people have roommates primarily because they want someone to live with? That may be the case in some instances but by far (unless you have something really compelling that says otherwise, I'm basing my assumptions off of how I lived before getting married and all of my current and former single friends)people live with roommates primarily to save on costs. Yes there are positive benefits to group living but that doesn't take away the underlying necessity of saving money.

I can't say whether micro-lofts are "needed" or not but considering where these are likely to get built its not like being unable to build a micro-loft building means that the developer will swing the pendulum the other way and install 3BRS with a playground/built in baby monitors. So yeah, lets build the micro-lofts and make sure that people can stay in the neighborhood once kids come along. Surely we can do both.

by drumz on Jul 13, 2012 1:52 pm • link • report

A Walker, I'm sorry, I thought I was addressing someone else (re: adequate/inadequate housing) in my post at 1:52 PM. My apologies.

by Fitz on Jul 13, 2012 1:55 pm • link • report

"I'm opposed to zoning for micro-housing because it serves a limited demo that has already readily and easily adapted to current housing stock. DC has great diversity but what it doesn't have a lot of is middle class families."

Micro units would presumbaly be allowed in places already zoned for multifamily. The largest units in such buildings are either 2BR, 2br with den, or (rarely) 3 BR. They are seldom inhabited by families with children - in fact they often are shared by roommates.

"If some people move to them, that will mean fewer people in group houses, which will improve the economics of turning them back into homes for families.

Not necessarily because the young, single demo has already shown they are willing to move to DC without micro-housing."

i do not follow your logic. Yes, many young single people move to DC - and they often move to SFHs and THs converted group houses - IE the ideal housing for families with children, but not available to families with children because being used as a group house.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 13, 2012 2:01 pm • link • report

drumz,

No, I agree with you, people live together to save costs. From my experience it's hardly unique to this area or other similarly high cost-of-living areas. I owned a condo in Hampton Roads and while it was very inexpensive ($110K for 1200 sq ft) but I had a roommate the entire time because I wanted to save more money and I had quite a few friends who did the same.

by Fitz on Jul 13, 2012 2:03 pm • link • report

@Fitz:

I'm with AWalker, I don't understand why you are opposed to micro-apartments given your support for more family housing. A micro-apartment building could house hundreds of young people, who would otherwise be 3-4 to a townhouse. A couple good-sized micro-apartment buildings near the more desirable areas could significantly relieve crowding in the older stockpile of townhouses, opening them back up to families.

Why do you think micro-apartments would hurt availability of single-family housing?

by JW on Jul 13, 2012 2:12 pm • link • report

Micro units would presumbaly be allowed in places already zoned for multifamily. The largest units in such buildings are either 2BR, 2br with den, or (rarely) 3 BR. They are seldom inhabited by families with children - in fact they often are shared by roommates.</>

I understand that, but micro-housing has a more limited pool of customers than studios, junior and 1BR units do. The latter 3 can accommodate couples and singles (at a price) while micro-housing is basically for singles and in rare situations, couples. I don't think it makes sense to add supply to the housing stock with such limitations, especially given the growth in singles without micro-housing.

by Fitz on Jul 13, 2012 2:15 pm • link • report

I don't understand why you are opposed to micro-apartments given your support for more family housing.

Because he dislikes the demo it is marketed to. There's nothing like ressentiment to get one's blood pumping.

by JustMe on Jul 13, 2012 2:20 pm • link • report

I don't think it makes sense to add supply to the housing stock with such limitations, especially given the growth in singles without micro-housing.

You don't think the market, over the long term, could support one or two thousand micro-apartments? The city produces thousands of college graduates every year, and many young people are moving in. Even with a significant increase in housing stock, it seems unlikely there will be a housing oversupply here anytime soon. Why not have a relatively small number of micro-units to take the edge off the rental market? It's not like anyone is proposing to stop building all regular apartments in favor of micro-units.

by JW on Jul 13, 2012 2:23 pm • link • report

I don't think it makes sense to add supply to the housing stock with such limitations, especially given the growth in singles without micro-housing.

But we're not the ones determining if it makes sense or not. The market will determine that. If there's a market for it, developers will build it. If not, they won't.

However, they can only build it if they are allowed to build it. So why not allow them to do so?

by Alex B. on Jul 13, 2012 2:23 pm • link • report

Because he dislikes the demo it is marketed to. There's nothing like ressentiment to get one's blood pumping.

Unsubstantiated and irrelevant personal attacks are the default response for those who can't form a coherent and reasonable argument.

by Fitz on Jul 13, 2012 2:25 pm • link • report

A personal anecdote: I lived the last three years in GW graduate housing, which is a converted hotel. Private room and bathroom, in-room microwave and refrigerator, communal kitchens and laundry. I thought it was great. If I had had the option to move into a similar building in Dupont, U St., Eastern Market, etc, I would have, and there are a lot of other people who would as well. Obviously it's not ideal, but people living in this city are generally willing to sacrifice living space for location; micro-units are just one more step in that direction.

by JW on Jul 13, 2012 2:32 pm • link • report

You don't think the market, over the long term, could support one or two thousand micro-apartments?

I'm not arguing that the market couldn't support it. It could. I'm arguing whether it's desirable for the city to zone for a type of housing which targets a limited demo, excludes other demos, and said target demo has already shown they're willing to live here in droves with the existing housing stock.

Let's go with your idea and say there's a limited number of units zoned for micro-housing. If forecasts show that prices would likely be substantially different from other similar options for singles (studios, junior and 1 BR) then ok, it might be acceptable to have a limited number.

by Fitz on Jul 13, 2012 2:40 pm • link • report

But we're not the ones determining if it makes sense or not. The market will determine that. If there's a market for it, developers will build it. If not, they won't.

However, they can only build it if they are allowed to build it. So why not allow them to do so?

Why do we have zoning laws?

by Fitz on Jul 13, 2012 2:50 pm • link • report

@Fitz:

But we're not the ones determining if it makes sense or not. The market will determine that. If there's a market for it, developers will build it. If not, they won't.
However, they can only build it if they are allowed to build it. So why not allow them to do so?

Why do we have zoning laws?

If you close your italics, it makes it a lot easier to see which text is yours, and which you're responding to.

But at any rate, I don't think that a valid reason for zoning laws is so that we can exclude housing aimed toward a demographic we don't particularly like. If you have other proposed reasons for zoning against this type of construction, I think we'd all be glad to hear them.

by Gray on Jul 13, 2012 2:59 pm • link • report

"I understand that, but micro-housing has a more limited pool of customers than studios, junior and 1BR units do. The latter 3 can accommodate couples and singles (at a price) while micro-housing is basically for singles and in rare situations, couples. I don't think it makes sense to add supply to the housing stock with such limitations, especially given the growth in singles without micro-housing"

It sounds like your concern is more for couples than for families with children.

Couples without children seem to be flocking here as well. While I support getting out the way of the market providing housing for them, I do not see a justification for banning a housing type to make it easier for couples, who do have lots of options. I think implying a concern for families with kids (who have fewer options) was misleading.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 13, 2012 3:04 pm • link • report

"Why do we have zoning laws?"

to prevent building types in places where they are not compatible with other uses, or with infrastructure. hence no noxious factories in residential areas. Limits on tall buildings adjacent to SFH's. Limits on density in areas with no good transit, where it will lead to excess auto usage and congestion. Some of those are debatable, but they are the reasons we have zoning.

Zoning to encourage a particular size of unit are rare, though not unknown. For example Toronto requires a minimum of 10% 3BR units in new buildings, IIUC. Im not sure thats a good idea (I certainly think IZ is more justifiable)and of course its different from minimum apt size.

There are two more legit reasons to zone against Micros. 1 would be if its too small for health and safety concerns, which the consensus seems to be is not the case. The other would be the increased number of units and people for a building of a given size - though I suspect few here think the resulting density would be crushing, esp as the worst congestion here is autos, and such a building would likely be disproportionately carfree.

by AWalkerInTheCIty on Jul 13, 2012 3:11 pm • link • report

@Gray,

But at any rate, I don't think that a valid reason for zoning laws is so that we can exclude housing aimed toward a demographic we don't particularly like.

More unsubstantiated nonsense. I never stated or implied I don't like them, in fact I outright stated otherwise, see "I love DC's young vibe and I still enjoy it on a regular basis."

by Fitz on Jul 13, 2012 3:18 pm • link • report

It sounds like your concern is more for couples than for families with children.

In the instance of zoning for micro-housing versus zoning for studios, junior or 1 BR units, yes.

While I support getting out the way of the market providing housing for them, I do not see a justification for banning a housing type to make it easier for couples, who do have lots of options.

So do singles, who have found ways to live in studios, junior and 1 BR, and mutli-bedroom housing units. Zoning for micro-housing puts much stricter limits than even studios.

by Fitz on Jul 13, 2012 3:34 pm • link • report

zoning to ALLOW micro housing does not mean requiring micro housing. It simply allows developers to build such units if there is a demand for it. Couples can live in the smaller units, but as they typically have larger incomes than singles, they can also often afford larger units (there are I would imagine many more couples than singles who can afford 2BR or larger units, leaving aside those who choose to live with roommates). That SOME singles can afford to live in studios, does not seem to me to be reason to BAN microstudios.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 13, 2012 4:16 pm • link • report

@AWalker:

zoning to ALLOW micro housing does not mean requiring micro housing. It simply allows developers to build such units if there is a demand for it.

This seems to be where many of us are talking past Fitz. Fitz seems to think that zoning for micro-housing means that developers could only build micro-housing. Or do I misunderstand?

Otherwise I continue to be baffled by opposition to allowing micro-housing. Fitz maintains that he/she has no animosity towards young or single people, and I fail to see any other reason to oppose it. Still waiting for Fitz to provide such justification.

by Gray on Jul 13, 2012 4:25 pm • link • report

I'm not arguing that the market couldn't support it. It could. I'm arguing whether it's desirable for the city to zone for a type of housing which targets a limited demo, excludes other demos,

Because there is a niche demo which has a demand for a certain kind of housing. Just because you don't like that demo doesn't mean they shouldn't be marketed to.

by JustMe on Jul 13, 2012 4:50 pm • link • report

I think Fitz is arguing it doesn't make sense to build housing that would effectively only be used for single adults, when you can build larger housing that could be used for families or multiple singles. I think he's arguing it's inflexible and therefore undesirable. Also that there is no real loss for those singles who would want to live in micro-units, since they could just get a room in a larger apt or TH.

Assuming that is his point, I get it but think he's wrong. Obviously micro-housing is a niche, but it's a niche that this city could support, particularly in the denser/high-demand areas. And providing for that niche would help lessen demand on other forms of housing that are better for people in other living situations.

by JW on Jul 13, 2012 5:01 pm • link • report

I understand that zoning for micro-housing allows for other types of units.

Fitz maintains that he/she has no animosity towards young or single people, and I fail to see any other reason to oppose it.

That's poor logic, especially since I've expressed otherwise. Opposition to something that affects a certain group does not correlate to animosity towards them.

JW understands what I am getting at.

by Fitz on Jul 14, 2012 5:07 pm • link • report

There are parts of DC where there is lower rents I have helped people look for apartments in DC that have had rents as low as $600. The problem most likely is due to being picky on where to live and what is around you.

You can go to many parts of NE & SE and find apartments that are in the $500 to $1000 range and they are not tiny cramped apartments. Instead of complaining how about actually looking all over the city instead of only small portions of it. If that is still to high than you might need to look at a new job or some type of assistance.

by kk on Jul 14, 2012 10:19 pm • link • report

there is no real loss for those singles who would want to live in micro-units, since they could just get a room in a larger apt or TH.

Group houses are also inferior to micro-units in that the former lack privacy and expose tenants to joint liability.

I have no interest in a 275sqft apartment, but I'm all in favor of making them available for people who are interested. They could be a great boon to people new to the city.

Also, I've seen 3-person families living in 540sqft studios, so I think people are overstating the paucity of options available.

by Steve S. on Jul 15, 2012 4:17 pm • link • report

@kk - You can go to many parts of NE & SE and find apartments that are in the $500 to $1000 range and they are not tiny cramped apartments. Instead of complaining how about actually looking all over the city instead of only small portions of it. If that is still to high than you might need to look at a new job or some type of assistance.

Well, those options exist, but there are plenty of people who would sacrifice space for location. We already do that--you don't find too many 1200sf apartments in Dupont Circle, Woodley Park, U Street, etc. People can look all over the city and still make a value judgment of "for me, 275 sf near the Dupont metro beats 1000 in Trinidad." I would argue it's not about entitlement, as you seem to imply, but choice. Choices rule!

by worthing on Jul 16, 2012 1:54 pm • link • report