Comments on "Walkable urban" places enjoy economic success, but face social equity challenges - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by LuvDusty

Fri, 14 Sep 2012 12:18:22 EDT

That chart is suspect. Clarendon ranks BELOW Columbia Heights in terms of Economic and Social rank? Seriously? I spend most of my free time in both those areas, and that's got to be totally wrong.

Comment by Ms. D

Wed, 12 Sep 2012 23:50:07 EDT

After doing a little research and talking with friends who have bought in my neighborhood recently, it appears that the mortgage and other housing expenses (utilities, maintenance, taxes, and other expenses) for new *owners* are around 35% of gross income for a family making 80% of the AMI. Better, but still a bit on the high side. Sure, that can be offset by lower transportation costs, but it goes to show that transit-accessibility is not affordable to many middle-class families (if you're at 80% AMI, you're certainly middle-class...it shouldn't be so hard to live in an emerging transit-accessible community).

Comment by Jay Roberts

Tue, 11 Sep 2012 19:20:33 EDT

Falls Church and Anacostia were listed in The Option of Urbanism as emerging, but are not on of the 43.

Any thoughts?

Comment by Juanita de Talmas

Tue, 11 Sep 2012 12:43:12 EDT

Jobs, maybe...but hardly any retail.

Comment by drumz

Tue, 11 Sep 2012 12:13:48 EDT

I think those "boring" features at least bring it a measure of some affordability which boosts its social rank while it's pretty much the same business level as the other VA. stops (except rosslyn) but with DARPA, The FDIC, and GMU right there that's a lot of jobs.

Comment by Juanita de Talmas

Tue, 11 Sep 2012 12:00:57 EDT

Virginia Square is the least interesting (retail, density, things to do) stop between Rosslyn and Ballston. How does it rank higher than the rest? Something is amiss in their ranking criteria.

Comment by NikolasM

Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:01:03 EDT

Every time I drive through Annandale I see the potential for a large urban redo. The streets already have a decent grid to build off of, but it is nothing but a giant sea of parking lots and aging strip malls. The area could become a huge focal point with the right investments.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:36:05 EDT

"I think the best use of affordable housing (or it's better named version -- inclusionary zoning) is to entice residents to allow gentrification. That's what we're seeing in the Columbia Pike corridor where long-time residents are (sort of) allowing gentrification in return for requiring builders to include some affordable units."

1. I share that POV mostly - but I recognize that POV means either acknowledging some justice in the position of the long time residents, or at least a pragmatic acceptance of the political reality. Some hardline libertarians will not accept either.

2. terminology - not all affordable housing is inclusionary zoning. Sometimes affordable housing can involve a cash subsidy (possibly funded by proffers on new development, but not necessarily), or even construction by govt. And the way Ive seen it used, IZ refers to a general mandate to include affordable units in new development, not to a voluntary proffer in exchange for a density bonus.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:32:24 EDT

Jasper - I dont know about Moco but it works differently in NoVa than in DC.

In DC under inclusionary zoning all new developments (oever a certain size?) must have a certain pct of affordable units. In NoVa, developers who offer affordable units can get a density bonus above what is otherwise allowed - they are receiving a subsidy in the form of additional density.

Comment by Jasper

Tue, 11 Sep 2012 07:19:17 EDT

@ dan reed:Besides, a subsidy isn't limiting profit.

Maybe I am not understanding how affordable housing works. I thought the government forced apartment owners to rent some small units for a low price. That is not a subsidy. That is limiting the profit of the apartment owner.

It is only a subsidy is the government actually cuts a check to someone involved.

@ oboe:They oppose it because they don't want to live next door to a building full of jobless, addicted single mothers with out-of-control children.

Oddly, many yuppies use the same coke dealer as that alleged addicted single mom. And while they have no problem helping our their yuppie friends with their kids, they would not lift a finger for the kids of the single mom.

Comment by Ms. D

Mon, 10 Sep 2012 23:26:12 EDT

Actually, I amend that. They could buy a home for less than 40% of their income...assuming they have the down payment and credit to do so, and are fixed enough to want to buy a home. It's the rents that exceed 40%.

Comment by Ms. D

Mon, 10 Sep 2012 23:20:53 EDT

[Deleted for violating the comment policy.] ...even for a family making 80% of the AMI, or almost $86K/year, the rent or mortgage for a 3-bedroom home in my, more-affordable-than-most-transit-accessible community is still over 40% of their income. The "subsidies" provided are often non-monetary (density bonuses) or one-off (a fixed amount per unit). Those non-monetary or one-off subsidies allow moderate-income families to continue to live in the community. Though I do like any program that KEEPS people in their homes (within reason...we shouldn't subsidize staying in a home to the point that someone who would have "cashed out" would choose to stay, just enough to allow people who WANT to stay to stay), it's important to make our communities more inclusive and provide opportunity to middle-class people who would LIKE to lower their transportation costs and environmental impacts, but otherwise couldn't afford to, to do so.

Comment by Falls Church

Mon, 10 Sep 2012 21:10:40 EDT

it pays to point out that much of the affordable housing in the region is available for families making up to 80% of the AMI. For a family of 4, that's over $85K/year

That's the catch-22. When affordable housing caters to folks making that kind of money, it raises flags, such as:

“We’re putting a half-a-billion dollars into subsidized housing for people making $70,000 to $120,000 a year instead of handling a lot of our most important priorities, such as transportation in Tysons Corner,” said Herrity. He has been especially critical of workforce housing subsidies for families that earn as much as 120 percent of the area median income, which is set by the federal government and is now $107,500 for a family of four.

But, when affordable housing caters to the truly poor, it gets opposition from NIMBYs.

I think the best use of affordable housing (or it's better named version -- inclusionary zoning) is to entice residents to allow gentrification. That's what we're seeing in the Columbia Pike corridor where long-time residents are (sort of) allowing gentrification in return for requiring builders to include some affordable units.

Comment by Ms. D

Mon, 10 Sep 2012 20:47:40 EDT

RE: re-framing affordable housing, it pays to point out that much of the affordable housing in the region is available for families making up to 80% of the AMI. For a family of 4, that's over $85K/year, or, in other words, 2 working adults making over $20/hour full-time. Even for the lower-income housing, much of it is open to people making up to 60% of the AMI, or almost $65K/year for the same family. Personally, I would have no problem living next to a family making $65-86K/year...sound like good, responsible people to me. Of course, many of those families can't afford reasonably-sized homes (for a family) in the most walkable areas, despite decent incomes that indicate professional, para-professional, or high-level manual or service jobs. And I'm not even one of those people who seem to think you need 1,000 square feet and 1.5 baths per household member. Even in my neighborhood, which tends to be a bit more affordable, an upscale 3-bedroom (recently renovated or built, 1200-1500 square feet, usually 2 baths) will run around or over $3K per month, or at least 41% of the income of someone making 80% of the AMI with a family of 4.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Mon, 10 Sep 2012 20:03:43 EDT

in what sense is annandale a walkable urban place?

Comment by DaveS

Mon, 10 Sep 2012 19:39:39 EDT

Very interesting article. Living near White Flint and Rockville, I would like to point out that while most development is around those two Metro stations, there are a sprinkling of mixed use (mostly low rise residential with ground level retail) popping up in between. This is developing as a single continuous walk up corridor.

Comment by MattF

Mon, 10 Sep 2012 19:16:08 EDT

It's good to see an analytical approach to 'rating' these areas, but I've got some doubts about the results. Do you think Reston Town Center really clusters with U Street/Shaw, or Bethesda with Adams Morgan? And Tyson's Corner is an outlier-- I have a suspicion that it accounts for a significant proportion of the commercial activity in the whole category.

Comment by Drumz

Mon, 10 Sep 2012 17:58:12 EDT

This R-B resident is hoping that we can add a lot more supply to the area. Plus the money spent increasing supply is the developers rather than the county's

Comment by oboe

Mon, 10 Sep 2012 17:09:35 EDT

I don't think the Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor would be a worse place if yuppies pulling six-figure salaries were rubbing elbows with schoolteachers or firemen or secretaries, but then again, I don't live in Arlington.

The problem here is that for a very long time, "affordable housing" has been synonymous with "welfare housing for the poorest of the poor". (Probably because the history of government subsidized housing projects in the US is one where initially middle-class residents took residence, but were replaced over time with absolute social dysfunction).

Sorry, but that's our history. And we're first going to need to change that public perception.

Because there are a lot of folks who hear the phrase "affordable housing" and understand it in that historical context. No one opposes affordable housing because they don't want to live next door to a schoolteacher or fireman. They oppose it because they don't want to live next door to a building full of jobless, addicted single mothers with out-of-control children.

Comment by dan reed!

Mon, 10 Sep 2012 16:54:20 EDT

Only so much of the cost of a new home is profit. A lot of it comes from land (normally higher in an urban setting), materials (duh), labor, "soft costs" (architects/lawyers/marketing/sales staff, etc.) and so on. A developer in MoCo says the permitting process alone adds $50k to the cost of a new home.

Besides, a subsidy isn't limiting profit. It's helping to cover the cost of a project that may not otherwise pencil out (i.e., may result in no profit or even result in a loss.) Not that I think it's wrong, but it can't be are only solution for providing affordable housing.

Comment by Jasper

Mon, 10 Sep 2012 16:44:55 EDT

@ dan reed (& others):There IS a limit to how much we can subsidize otherwise expensive housing

Subsidizing... It's not really subsidizing. It's limiting profit by a private company by forcing them to do something responsible.

Comment by charlie

Mon, 10 Sep 2012 14:04:22 EDT

@danreed. Clearly, you don't live in Arlington. Our firefighters and policemen are making six figures -- hell, I know a few who live in Georgetown.

Comment by AWalkerInTheCity

Mon, 10 Sep 2012 13:29:01 EDT

RBC well first of all some of the solutions would shift the supply curve, and would not increase prices for top units.

Second, since one of the social benefits of WUPs is that they decrease vehicle usage, and since low and moderate income people are more likely to be carfree, increasing affordable and workforce housing near them can be good for enviro goals.

Third, we as a society may want more economically diverse areas. Certainly the image of WUPs as yuppie havens does not make it easier to overcome NIMBYISM. Also, since RBC began its upward swing when it had more affordable units, I doubt there will not be enough yups willing to live near them.

Comment by dan reed!

Mon, 10 Sep 2012 13:28:09 EDT

Affordable housing is only undesirable if you think the people who'd live in it are undesirable. I don't think the Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor would be a worse place if yuppies pulling six-figure salaries were rubbing elbows with schoolteachers or firemen or secretaries, but then again, I don't live in Arlington.

There IS a limit to how much we can subsidize otherwise expensive housing to make it affordable, to which the answer (as Leinberger points out) is to increase the supply - whether in already "hot" areas like Arlington, or by creating more "walkable urban places" elsewhere in the region to spread out the demand.

Comment by jag

Mon, 10 Sep 2012 13:27:44 EDT

Wow, Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor. Way to own it, at least.

On a personal note, people like that is the reason why I (and plenty of "Yups") will never be caught dead near R-B.

Comment by Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor

Mon, 10 Sep 2012 13:18:42 EDT

"In addition, he says more must be done to provide affordable and workforce housing in WalkUPs, both through subsidies and simply building more housing to meet the demand"

Why? What is the argument for spending a lot of money doing this (and driving up the prices even more by taking away scarce housing resources), instead of having these less affluent people live near other metro stations in less desirable areas?

A high price tells you something; it tells you there is more demand than supply. Only by lowering the economic attractiveness of an area (and undoing its success), can you truly make it economically diverse again.

On a personal note; more affordable housing would make me reconsider my current place of residence, and with me many other Yup's who form the economic backbone of these areas.

Comment by Gray

Mon, 10 Sep 2012 13:11:48 EDT

He seems to be basing the economic rankings entirely on rent figures, but Virginia Square is somehow ranked above Rosslyn, Courthouse, Clarendon, and Ballston? That seems a bit suspect.

Comment by dan reed!

Mon, 10 Sep 2012 12:57:31 EDT

The study focused on places "where the metropolitan area" works; i.e., job centers or regional destinations, though Leinberger says there will be a follow-up study looking at "local-serving" walkable urban places like Shirlington.

Comment by almondwine

Mon, 10 Sep 2012 12:53:29 EDT

Anyone have any insight as to the exclusion of certain South Arlington areas (Pike/Walter Reed, Penrose, Shirlington)?