Anyone have a Pop-up blocker? For houses?
March 27, 2015 2:10 PM Subscribe
Washington DC is going through a real estate boom. Except there isn’t a lot of real estate to build on. The unique combination of population density, rapidly gentrifying neighborhoods and lax zoning and code regulations means developers eager to cash in on the District’s real estate boom have been taking hundred year old rowhouses bought for a song, throwing on a third floor “pop-up” and converting them into condo units. More often than not, the designs of the pop-ups look nothing like the rest of the neighborhood, prompting neighbor ire about the character of the neighborhood architecture being changed.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but common developer designs range from: Attempts to match the surroundings, No attempt at all, to maximizing every single square inch, aesthetics be damned.
Developers claim that they’re adding needed housing stock in neighborhoods that people want to buy in and describe neighbor complaints as NIMBYism, but neighbors have stated that the complaints about pop-ups are more than just about aesthetics - the pop-ups are blocking their solar panels, sunlight, and destroying their homes.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but common developer designs range from: Attempts to match the surroundings, No attempt at all, to maximizing every single square inch, aesthetics be damned.
Developers claim that they’re adding needed housing stock in neighborhoods that people want to buy in and describe neighbor complaints as NIMBYism, but neighbors have stated that the complaints about pop-ups are more than just about aesthetics - the pop-ups are blocking their solar panels, sunlight, and destroying their homes.
Don't worry, in a century it'll be adorably retro...and the only part not under water.
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 2:20 PM on March 27, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 2:20 PM on March 27, 2015 [7 favorites]
The pic of the sun being blocked is weak evidence. It's fairly low in the sky at what seems to be near sunset during the winter.
This is some serious nimby-ism dressed up as an argument over aesthetics. Matching the area means "has the means to be able to not just buy a condo in an expensive area, but to buy a condo made even more expensive due to the need to match it's surroundings"
posted by Ferreous at 2:20 PM on March 27, 2015 [4 favorites]
This is some serious nimby-ism dressed up as an argument over aesthetics. Matching the area means "has the means to be able to not just buy a condo in an expensive area, but to buy a condo made even more expensive due to the need to match it's surroundings"
posted by Ferreous at 2:20 PM on March 27, 2015 [4 favorites]
Or would you prefer this as your neighbor?
(Yes, this is my neighbor.)
posted by paulhyden at 2:21 PM on March 27, 2015
(Yes, this is my neighbor.)
posted by paulhyden at 2:21 PM on March 27, 2015
This is a thing in Seattle, now, and probably anywhere there is a heated real estate market. We're getting letters and visits from developers looking to buy our place, so that they can put in pop-ups by developers like these, who make ugly Lego-block buildings that look cheap and were probably made with cheap materials, with the veneer of expense. These groups buy up plots where single-family homes used to be, put in two houses where the old one sat, and then use semantic tricks to build 20-30' above what zoning regulations allow, so as to maximize square footage and selling price. The building contractors are irresponsible and let (dangerous) construction garbage go everywhere on the street, and the finished monstrosities tower over neighboring homes. It's a pretty nasty affair, but as with anything where wealthy parties are concerned, the laws encourage them to stomp on anyone unlucky enough to live nearby.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:27 PM on March 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by a lungful of dragon at 2:27 PM on March 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
"Yeah, that's one large pizza, extra mushrooms going to 124 Olive Street, Apartment Parasitic Cube."
posted by a manly man person who is male and masculine at 2:28 PM on March 27, 2015 [16 favorites]
posted by a manly man person who is male and masculine at 2:28 PM on March 27, 2015 [16 favorites]
The pic of the sun being blocked is weak evidence. It's fairly low in the sky at what seems to be near sunset during the winter.
What about the owners of the next four houses closer to the new building going up? Do they have a valid complaint?
posted by peeedro at 2:39 PM on March 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
What about the owners of the next four houses closer to the new building going up? Do they have a valid complaint?
posted by peeedro at 2:39 PM on March 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
is is a thing in Seattle, now, and probably anywhere there is a heated real estate market. We're getting letters and visits from developers looking to buy our place, so that they can put in pop-ups by developers like these, who make ugly Lego-block buildings that look cheap and were probably made with cheap materials, with the veneer of expense.
I think that actually looks pretty nice, but I guess to each his/her own.
These groups buy up plots where single-family homes used to be, put in two houses where the old one sat, and then use semantic tricks to build 20-30' above what zoning regulations allow, so as to maximize square footage and selling price.
Increased density is generally good, no?
posted by gyc at 2:43 PM on March 27, 2015 [12 favorites]
I think that actually looks pretty nice, but I guess to each his/her own.
These groups buy up plots where single-family homes used to be, put in two houses where the old one sat, and then use semantic tricks to build 20-30' above what zoning regulations allow, so as to maximize square footage and selling price.
Increased density is generally good, no?
posted by gyc at 2:43 PM on March 27, 2015 [12 favorites]
There's a ton of underdeveloped land in Washington, DC.
The only thing that there is a shortage of is neighborhoods that white people want to live in.
Oh, and a coherent vision on our city's future from the local government. That too. Particularly regarding transit. Somehow, the people of DC managed to elect a city government comprised almost entirely out of car commuters from the "suburban" portions of the District who don't care about making sure that the city is accessible to people who don't drive everywhere...
posted by schmod at 2:50 PM on March 27, 2015 [11 favorites]
The only thing that there is a shortage of is neighborhoods that white people want to live in.
Oh, and a coherent vision on our city's future from the local government. That too. Particularly regarding transit. Somehow, the people of DC managed to elect a city government comprised almost entirely out of car commuters from the "suburban" portions of the District who don't care about making sure that the city is accessible to people who don't drive everywhere...
posted by schmod at 2:50 PM on March 27, 2015 [11 favorites]
At this point in Austin I wouldn't care what it looked like, if we could actually have enough housing. But it doesn't look like these units are being built with affordability in mind, just more condos for people with too much money to buy.
posted by fiercecupcake at 2:52 PM on March 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by fiercecupcake at 2:52 PM on March 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
My part of DC is seeing a lot of pop up growth (and also a lot of no pop up signs in yards). I go on frequent walks and they really do have a noticeable affect on the amount of sunlight the getting to the houses immediately next door.
posted by everybody had matching towels at 2:52 PM on March 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by everybody had matching towels at 2:52 PM on March 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
This seems like the lesser of two evils compared to fascist HOAs.
posted by 256 at 2:53 PM on March 27, 2015 [10 favorites]
posted by 256 at 2:53 PM on March 27, 2015 [10 favorites]
I'm a fan of increased density and chose to buy a house in a neighborhood full of rentals, a few apartment buildings, and lots of ADUs in basements and above garages. That said, good zoning keeps things at least somewhat proportional and should provide neighbors with a chance to weigh in on the results. Increasing density is good, but if the architectural or procedural results are ceappy they need to adjust their process and oversight.
posted by Dip Flash at 2:53 PM on March 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Dip Flash at 2:53 PM on March 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm no fan of developers in general, or of poor architectural decisions (often the two go hand in hand), but I have to say the phrase "character of the neighborhood" sets my teeth on edge. It's so often used as a code phrase for "people like me should live here, and nobody else."
posted by tempestuoso at 2:54 PM on March 27, 2015 [26 favorites]
posted by tempestuoso at 2:54 PM on March 27, 2015 [26 favorites]
If you really want an ugly vertical extension, you've got to look to Boston.
Please, build as much more housing as possible in the handful of walkable places that are still left in the United States, because it's essentially impossible to make any more of them in this era of mandatory setbacks and parking requirements.
posted by enf at 2:54 PM on March 27, 2015 [7 favorites]
Please, build as much more housing as possible in the handful of walkable places that are still left in the United States, because it's essentially impossible to make any more of them in this era of mandatory setbacks and parking requirements.
posted by enf at 2:54 PM on March 27, 2015 [7 favorites]
There's plenty of room in Anacostia y'all.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 2:56 PM on March 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 2:56 PM on March 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
There's a ton of underdeveloped land in Washington, DC.
The only thing that there is a shortage of is neighborhoods that white people want to live in.
But if white people move into undesirable neighborhoods instead, then won't they become evil gentrifiers?
posted by gyc at 3:00 PM on March 27, 2015 [7 favorites]
The only thing that there is a shortage of is neighborhoods that white people want to live in.
But if white people move into undesirable neighborhoods instead, then won't they become evil gentrifiers?
posted by gyc at 3:00 PM on March 27, 2015 [7 favorites]
Part of the problem is that this city's landlord and developer class seems to be made up largely of morons. Businesses get priced out of retail spaces and they sit empty for years. Giant apartment buildings are built and sit apparently empty for years. It sure doesn't sound like anyone's buying these popups. It's everywhere, too, downtown, in gentrifying neighborhoods, and in wealthy residential neighborhoods as well (not to mention the non-gentrifying neighborhoods that never had a chance). Who knows, maybe in the long run it will work out when someone is willing to pay whatever prices the landlords are charging, but for now there are a lot of empty storefronts for a city that's supposedly doing better than ever, and I can't really understand how it could possibly be profitable to let places sit completely vacant for years and years.
posted by Copronymus at 3:08 PM on March 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Copronymus at 3:08 PM on March 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
This seems like the lesser of two evils compared to fascist HOAs.
You're in luck because these conversions from single family homes to 3 unit condos come complete with fascist HOAs to make sure you've got that beige box looking it's beigiest.
posted by Karaage at 3:13 PM on March 27, 2015 [7 favorites]
You're in luck because these conversions from single family homes to 3 unit condos come complete with fascist HOAs to make sure you've got that beige box looking it's beigiest.
posted by Karaage at 3:13 PM on March 27, 2015 [7 favorites]
This isn't necessarily a complaint, but I have a theory that people buying row-homes in the blocks on West Philly for a song and turning them over have a thing about painting their row home balcony things funky colors. This theory is brought to you by this post and my trip down West Philly this afternoon. Thank you.
posted by angrycat at 3:16 PM on March 27, 2015
posted by angrycat at 3:16 PM on March 27, 2015
A pet peeve:
"Developers claim that they’re adding needed housing stock in neighborhoods that people want to buy in"
Well, they ARE adding housing stock, in neighborhoods that people DO want to buy in. This is obvious to anyone who isn't willfully blind.
posted by ocschwar at 3:20 PM on March 27, 2015 [5 favorites]
"Developers claim that they’re adding needed housing stock in neighborhoods that people want to buy in"
Well, they ARE adding housing stock, in neighborhoods that people DO want to buy in. This is obvious to anyone who isn't willfully blind.
posted by ocschwar at 3:20 PM on March 27, 2015 [5 favorites]
The one on V St. is so absurd looking. I have friends who live a couple blocks away - I'll have to remember to go by that pop-up place the next time I visit so I can laugh at it in person.
posted by rtha at 3:27 PM on March 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by rtha at 3:27 PM on March 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
This is a thing in Seattle, now, and probably anywhere there is a heated real estate market. We're getting letters and visits from developers looking to buy our place, so that they can put in pop-ups by developers like these, who make ugly Lego-block buildings that look cheap and were probably made with cheap materials, with the veneer of expense. These groups buy up plots where single-family homes used to be, put in two houses where the old one sat, and then use semantic tricks to build 20-30' above what zoning regulations allow, so as to maximize square footage and selling price. The building contractors are irresponsible and let (dangerous) construction garbage go everywhere on the street, and the finished monstrosities tower over neighboring homes. It's a pretty nasty affair, but as with anything where wealthy parties are concerned, the laws encourage them to stomp on anyone unlucky enough to live nearby.
Yea. The biggest issue with this is that they're not really adding density in any meaningful way. Adding one or two houses per block and eliminating yards doesn't really have a meaningful effect other than ruining yards and cramping houses together while eliminating natural light.
This may seem like a very NIMBY organization, but this shit is ridiculous. I absolutely support density, but single family homes in the middle of town isn't it. Built multi family housing, ease zoning and height restrictions. Cramming houses in between houses or stuff on top of existing structures in awkward ways is the kind of shit that happens when NIMBYs block meaningful development.
Look at the shitfest around the Roosevelt light rail station if you doubt this. Go look at what they were trying to build, large mixed income apartment complexes. It got pared down and down, and they actually fought the city on demolishing blocks of abandoned rotting houses because apparently they'd rather have that.
And now we're getting this crap. Awesome.
posted by emptythought at 3:31 PM on March 27, 2015 [5 favorites]
Yea. The biggest issue with this is that they're not really adding density in any meaningful way. Adding one or two houses per block and eliminating yards doesn't really have a meaningful effect other than ruining yards and cramping houses together while eliminating natural light.
This may seem like a very NIMBY organization, but this shit is ridiculous. I absolutely support density, but single family homes in the middle of town isn't it. Built multi family housing, ease zoning and height restrictions. Cramming houses in between houses or stuff on top of existing structures in awkward ways is the kind of shit that happens when NIMBYs block meaningful development.
Look at the shitfest around the Roosevelt light rail station if you doubt this. Go look at what they were trying to build, large mixed income apartment complexes. It got pared down and down, and they actually fought the city on demolishing blocks of abandoned rotting houses because apparently they'd rather have that.
And now we're getting this crap. Awesome.
posted by emptythought at 3:31 PM on March 27, 2015 [5 favorites]
“What will future generations think as they walk through what were once our neighborhoods and see the hodgepodge of condos haphazardly mixed in with row homes?”
"Thanks for giving us a place to live"?
posted by wikipedia brown boy detective at 3:31 PM on March 27, 2015 [9 favorites]
"Thanks for giving us a place to live"?
posted by wikipedia brown boy detective at 3:31 PM on March 27, 2015 [9 favorites]
This is, frankly, an awful post. There is a massive shortage of housing in North American cities, and that's a lot more worrying than some very subjective aesthetic issues.
It's a pretty nasty affair, but as with anything where wealthy parties are concerned, the laws encourage them to stomp on anyone unlucky enough to live nearby.
People who own single-family homes in Seattle are wealthy parties! They're straight-up keeping others out of the city, by ensuring that 65% of Seattle remains zoned exclusively for single-family housing.
posted by ripley_ at 3:32 PM on March 27, 2015 [14 favorites]
It's a pretty nasty affair, but as with anything where wealthy parties are concerned, the laws encourage them to stomp on anyone unlucky enough to live nearby.
People who own single-family homes in Seattle are wealthy parties! They're straight-up keeping others out of the city, by ensuring that 65% of Seattle remains zoned exclusively for single-family housing.
posted by ripley_ at 3:32 PM on March 27, 2015 [14 favorites]
I actually like the balanced chaos of Chicago style development. They have some sort of height restriction on house building that you have to be within something like 120% of the neighboring average. So the housing stock gradually gets taller and taller but not with too many jarring leaps. Unfortunately, they also have restrictions on the number of units so typically the unit count is decreased when someone does a tear down of a 3-up to build larger single family mansion and the population of the coveted areas actually drop when they should increase.
posted by srboisvert at 3:35 PM on March 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by srboisvert at 3:35 PM on March 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
The one on V St. is so absurd looking.
It's actually a location on google maps called "The Monstrosity on V"
posted by peeedro at 3:35 PM on March 27, 2015 [11 favorites]
It's actually a location on google maps called "The Monstrosity on V"
posted by peeedro at 3:35 PM on March 27, 2015 [11 favorites]
Emptythought, if you really do add one or two new buildings on every block in between or behind existing buildings, you've let 15% more people live in the city without displacing anyone from their current home, while letting the new residents retain most of the advantages of single family homes (control over the appearance of your building and sound isolation from noisy neighbors). There comes a point where you can't get any more dense without completely replacing existing buildings, but until you get to that point, why not get your density, the cheaper, easier, less disruptive, and more private way?
posted by enf at 3:45 PM on March 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by enf at 3:45 PM on March 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
> There is a massive shortage of housing in North American cities
This seems like an awfully broad statement. Do you mean affordable housing in particular?
posted by rtha at 3:58 PM on March 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
This seems like an awfully broad statement. Do you mean affordable housing in particular?
posted by rtha at 3:58 PM on March 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
This seems like an awfully broad statement. Do you mean affordable housing in particular?
No, I don't (although that's important as well). I'm referring to the absolute amount of housing allowed - virtually every North American city I'm familiar with has painfully binding caps on the amount of new housing allowed.
As mentioned above, Seattle keeps about 65% of its land zoned for single-family houses. In Vancouver, it's closer to 80% of residentially zoned land that's reserved for single-family homes and (a small handful of) duplexes.
San Francisco allows very little new housing, and most of Silicon Valley is even worse.
L.A. was zoned to allow about 10 million people in 1960, but over time that was ratcheted down to allow virtually no additional as-of-right development (source: this fantastic UCLA dissertation, well worth a read).
Those that don't explicitly zone away additional housing have other systems that effectively keep people out: Houston might not have Euclidean zoning, but it does have very high parking minimums, minimum lot sizes, and extremely wide minimum road sizes.
These policies were forgiveable in an era where land/fuel/housing were relatively cheap, and there was relatively little understanding of how sprawl might affect the environment. Today, they're a catastrophe.
posted by ripley_ at 4:31 PM on March 27, 2015 [10 favorites]
No, I don't (although that's important as well). I'm referring to the absolute amount of housing allowed - virtually every North American city I'm familiar with has painfully binding caps on the amount of new housing allowed.
As mentioned above, Seattle keeps about 65% of its land zoned for single-family houses. In Vancouver, it's closer to 80% of residentially zoned land that's reserved for single-family homes and (a small handful of) duplexes.
San Francisco allows very little new housing, and most of Silicon Valley is even worse.
L.A. was zoned to allow about 10 million people in 1960, but over time that was ratcheted down to allow virtually no additional as-of-right development (source: this fantastic UCLA dissertation, well worth a read).
Those that don't explicitly zone away additional housing have other systems that effectively keep people out: Houston might not have Euclidean zoning, but it does have very high parking minimums, minimum lot sizes, and extremely wide minimum road sizes.
These policies were forgiveable in an era where land/fuel/housing were relatively cheap, and there was relatively little understanding of how sprawl might affect the environment. Today, they're a catastrophe.
posted by ripley_ at 4:31 PM on March 27, 2015 [10 favorites]
The one on V St. is so absurd looking.
What's funny is I walk on that block several times a week, and never noticed it. When people started making a big deal, I looked out for it and eventually saw it. It's right next to a huge apartment building, so in context it actually doesn't look that ridiculous. I stared at it for a few moments to see what everybody was carping about.
Truth is, the rents in this city have gotten close to insanity levels. We need significantly more density in the housing stock. I'm not sure pop-ups are the best solution, but they're not the worst thing in the world. We probably need significantly more multi-story apartment buildings and fewer rowhouses, but I guess we should respect history over affordability.
(Also, as rowhouses get cut up into apartments/condos, it reduces the supply of group houses, which really hurts at the bottom of the young-people income distribution.)
And, I'll tell you what. Those saying there's plenty of room inAnacostia east of the river, that's not as true as you'd think. I've got several friends who have tried to move there out of fiduciary necessity, only to find out a lot of others are doing the same and boosting rental prices.
posted by General Malaise at 4:33 PM on March 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
What's funny is I walk on that block several times a week, and never noticed it. When people started making a big deal, I looked out for it and eventually saw it. It's right next to a huge apartment building, so in context it actually doesn't look that ridiculous. I stared at it for a few moments to see what everybody was carping about.
Truth is, the rents in this city have gotten close to insanity levels. We need significantly more density in the housing stock. I'm not sure pop-ups are the best solution, but they're not the worst thing in the world. We probably need significantly more multi-story apartment buildings and fewer rowhouses, but I guess we should respect history over affordability.
(Also, as rowhouses get cut up into apartments/condos, it reduces the supply of group houses, which really hurts at the bottom of the young-people income distribution.)
And, I'll tell you what. Those saying there's plenty of room in
posted by General Malaise at 4:33 PM on March 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
There is a massive shortage of housing in North American cities
Terrible infill or no new housing is a false dichotomy.
posted by GuyZero at 4:36 PM on March 27, 2015 [11 favorites]
Terrible infill or no new housing is a false dichotomy.
posted by GuyZero at 4:36 PM on March 27, 2015 [11 favorites]
People who own single-family homes in Seattle are wealthy parties! They're straight-up keeping others out of the city, by ensuring that 65% of Seattle remains zoned exclusively for single-family housing.
I don't want to derail the thread too much from being about DC. Just relaying observations from seeing our block and the area of Seattle I live in change dramatically — and pop-ups have made it generally worse — over the last three years.
That said, the parties buying foreclosed and older single-family homes in Seattle are hedge funds and investor groups, mostly, that are much, much wealthier than the people who own single-family homes.
They tear down formerly livable, inexpensive (if not-so-modern) homes and make cramped, ugly, cheaply-made living spaces that are sold for twice the price — actually four times, when one considers the typical density increase.
These groups are pricing most potential homeowners out of the city, by reducing supply of single-family homes and replacing them with more expensive properties that pack more people into smaller spaces. So the notion that single-family homeowners are somehow the ones keeping people from moving into this city seems fairly risible.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 4:38 PM on March 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
I don't want to derail the thread too much from being about DC. Just relaying observations from seeing our block and the area of Seattle I live in change dramatically — and pop-ups have made it generally worse — over the last three years.
That said, the parties buying foreclosed and older single-family homes in Seattle are hedge funds and investor groups, mostly, that are much, much wealthier than the people who own single-family homes.
They tear down formerly livable, inexpensive (if not-so-modern) homes and make cramped, ugly, cheaply-made living spaces that are sold for twice the price — actually four times, when one considers the typical density increase.
These groups are pricing most potential homeowners out of the city, by reducing supply of single-family homes and replacing them with more expensive properties that pack more people into smaller spaces. So the notion that single-family homeowners are somehow the ones keeping people from moving into this city seems fairly risible.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 4:38 PM on March 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
There is a massive shortage of housing in North American cities
Or a massive overage of people.
posted by IndigoJones at 4:44 PM on March 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
Or a massive overage of people.
posted by IndigoJones at 4:44 PM on March 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
Terrible infill or no new housing is a false dichotomy.
It sure is, but this post shows a few buildings that happen to look different from the other ones near them. That doesn't make them terrible (and in my neck of the woods, people complain when new buildings all look the same!).
They tear down formerly livable, inexpensive (if not-so-modern) homes and make cramped, ugly, cheaply-made living spaces that are sold for twice the price — actually four times, when one considers the typical density increase.
In other words: many people prefer newer buildings and are willing to pay more for them.
Or a massive overage of people.
Not exactly a problem that should be solved by limiting the amount of housing.
posted by ripley_ at 4:53 PM on March 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
It sure is, but this post shows a few buildings that happen to look different from the other ones near them. That doesn't make them terrible (and in my neck of the woods, people complain when new buildings all look the same!).
They tear down formerly livable, inexpensive (if not-so-modern) homes and make cramped, ugly, cheaply-made living spaces that are sold for twice the price — actually four times, when one considers the typical density increase.
In other words: many people prefer newer buildings and are willing to pay more for them.
Or a massive overage of people.
Not exactly a problem that should be solved by limiting the amount of housing.
posted by ripley_ at 4:53 PM on March 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
Petition to start a movement where 1 million cool people all move to a non-densely populated city like Detroit or Huntsville or Burlington and we all promise to hire eachother and we live like kings.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 5:14 PM on March 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 5:14 PM on March 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
In other words: many people prefer newer buildings and are willing to pay more for them.
"Many" is not quite right. This is actually a pretty contentious issue being discussed in local media right now, in that, outside of a small community of tech workers, primarily, fewer and fewer can actually afford what is now replacing what was formerly affordable housing.
It's a problem here, to the extent that older people who can't afford to stay even in the high-density housing you value — which is being turned over to investors — have to resort to suicide to avoid eviction, because there's such a shortage of low-income housing.
That single-family housing rate you're quoting is mostly context-free. It does not reflect the reality of how worse the affordability situation is becoming across the board — and why that is happening has very little to do with people in single-family homes.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 5:18 PM on March 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
"Many" is not quite right. This is actually a pretty contentious issue being discussed in local media right now, in that, outside of a small community of tech workers, primarily, fewer and fewer can actually afford what is now replacing what was formerly affordable housing.
It's a problem here, to the extent that older people who can't afford to stay even in the high-density housing you value — which is being turned over to investors — have to resort to suicide to avoid eviction, because there's such a shortage of low-income housing.
That single-family housing rate you're quoting is mostly context-free. It does not reflect the reality of how worse the affordability situation is becoming across the board — and why that is happening has very little to do with people in single-family homes.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 5:18 PM on March 27, 2015 [3 favorites]
fewer and fewer can actually afford what is now replacing what was formerly affordable housing
Those older single-family homes are more affordable than newer buildings because they are old.
I'm not trying to trivialise that - older buildings are important because they're more affordable - but it's an important point because there is literally no way to build new market housing that will be as cheap as older buildings are.
The best you can do is build a ton now and then wait. Wouldn't it be great if Seattle had done that 20-30 years ago?
posted by ripley_ at 5:39 PM on March 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
Those older single-family homes are more affordable than newer buildings because they are old.
I'm not trying to trivialise that - older buildings are important because they're more affordable - but it's an important point because there is literally no way to build new market housing that will be as cheap as older buildings are.
The best you can do is build a ton now and then wait. Wouldn't it be great if Seattle had done that 20-30 years ago?
posted by ripley_ at 5:39 PM on March 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
The main issue I have with the "hey it's creating more population density at affordable rates" argument is that they'll often take what was once a $400k- single family home, then divide it up and sell it in condos with a veneer of a "luxury" finishes that each go for $600k due to the larger square footage and the new furnishings. While yes, it creates more housing, I have a harder time saying that it creates more "affordable" housing.
The other downside, that some new condo owners are realizing, is that these speed with which these homes are flipped is astonishing and the build work (aesthestics notwithstanding) is often shoddy and in poor quality. Several owners of these condos I know are currently in litigation with the developers that built their pop-up for having a lot of unpermitted work that was done improperly.
posted by Karaage at 5:40 PM on March 27, 2015 [4 favorites]
The other downside, that some new condo owners are realizing, is that these speed with which these homes are flipped is astonishing and the build work (aesthestics notwithstanding) is often shoddy and in poor quality. Several owners of these condos I know are currently in litigation with the developers that built their pop-up for having a lot of unpermitted work that was done improperly.
posted by Karaage at 5:40 PM on March 27, 2015 [4 favorites]
There's a ton of underdeveloped land in Washington, DC.
There really isn't - at least if we keep building at current rates, and if the population keeps growing at a rate similar to what it has in the last decade (and assuming the continuance of the height limit). I've seen several estimates that have us running out of available land for development in less than 30 years.
posted by ryanshepard at 5:57 PM on March 27, 2015
There really isn't - at least if we keep building at current rates, and if the population keeps growing at a rate similar to what it has in the last decade (and assuming the continuance of the height limit). I've seen several estimates that have us running out of available land for development in less than 30 years.
posted by ryanshepard at 5:57 PM on March 27, 2015
The new construction itself isn't generally going to be more affordable, because it always costs a lot (materials, labor, foregone income during construction from whatever was previously on the site) to make new things, especially when there is little enough being built that it can all be targeted at the "luxury" market and still find buyers.
What's more affordable because of new construction is the existing houses or apartments that are no longer getting bid up because the people who would have been competing for them are living in the new building instead.
posted by enf at 6:02 PM on March 27, 2015 [6 favorites]
What's more affordable because of new construction is the existing houses or apartments that are no longer getting bid up because the people who would have been competing for them are living in the new building instead.
posted by enf at 6:02 PM on March 27, 2015 [6 favorites]
It's interesting to look at this together with the post on the Shut-In Economy. Like, eventually all these remote tech workers are going to realize that you could buy a farm, put a mansion on it, and build a fleet of servant robots for the kind of money some developer wants for a cardboard box they put on top of a row house. Or, okay, just get a nice-sized house in a midwestern city and an epic Bloody Mary. Still better than a cardboard box, even a cardboard box with granite counters.
posted by Sequence at 7:09 PM on March 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Sequence at 7:09 PM on March 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
"just get a nice-sized house in a midwestern city and an epic Bloody Mary. "
Uhhhhh ... How does Sequence know my bat signal?
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:33 PM on March 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
Uhhhhh ... How does Sequence know my bat signal?
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:33 PM on March 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
and we all promise to hire each other and we live like kings.
Damn hell ass kings!
posted by entropicamericana at 8:25 PM on March 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
Damn hell ass kings!
posted by entropicamericana at 8:25 PM on March 27, 2015 [2 favorites]
Eyebrows, just wait until you look at the place a couple doors down.
posted by Sequence at 8:29 PM on March 27, 2015
posted by Sequence at 8:29 PM on March 27, 2015
Also how can anything that brings us closer to glorious blade runner architectural future be bad?
posted by Ferreous at 9:27 PM on March 27, 2015
posted by Ferreous at 9:27 PM on March 27, 2015
The funny thing is that a neighborhood with rowhouses is already substantially denser than a neighborhood with detached single-family housing. I’d love for rowhouses to be a thing in Austin, but only a couple neighborhoods have zoning rules that would even allow for it.
But, yeah, it does feel like DC is caught in a spiral where the only available solutions are (a) build more densely in the urban core, making buildings taller; (b) build more sprawl; or (c) gentrify some neighborhoods and push poor people outward. Opponents of A think the answer is B or C, opponents of B think the answer is A or C… and so on.
I’m in camp A. I don’t think DC should feel like New York, but I think you could double all existing height restrictions without taking away from the grandeur of all the monuments and romanesque buildings and whatnot. If that means more popups atop row houses, so be it, but my guess is that the popups are so plentiful right now because they’re the only feasible solution within the existing zoning rules.
posted by savetheclocktower at 9:32 PM on March 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
But, yeah, it does feel like DC is caught in a spiral where the only available solutions are (a) build more densely in the urban core, making buildings taller; (b) build more sprawl; or (c) gentrify some neighborhoods and push poor people outward. Opponents of A think the answer is B or C, opponents of B think the answer is A or C… and so on.
I’m in camp A. I don’t think DC should feel like New York, but I think you could double all existing height restrictions without taking away from the grandeur of all the monuments and romanesque buildings and whatnot. If that means more popups atop row houses, so be it, but my guess is that the popups are so plentiful right now because they’re the only feasible solution within the existing zoning rules.
posted by savetheclocktower at 9:32 PM on March 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
Petition to start a movement where 1 million cool people all move to a non-densely populated city like Detroit or Huntsville or Burlington and we all promise to hire eachother and we live like kings.
Which Burlington? Actually, Huntsville sounds like a bad plan too. Let's not have a million people move anywhere.
posted by maryr at 9:33 PM on March 27, 2015
Which Burlington? Actually, Huntsville sounds like a bad plan too. Let's not have a million people move anywhere.
posted by maryr at 9:33 PM on March 27, 2015
rtha: "The one on V St. is so absurd looking."
It looks like the only problem with that building is the two houses to the left and the one on the right haven't expanded upwards yet. There is even a six story building three doors down. 15 years from now people won;t be able to figure out what the fuss was.
posted by Mitheral at 12:53 AM on March 28, 2015 [2 favorites]
It looks like the only problem with that building is the two houses to the left and the one on the right haven't expanded upwards yet. There is even a six story building three doors down. 15 years from now people won;t be able to figure out what the fuss was.
posted by Mitheral at 12:53 AM on March 28, 2015 [2 favorites]
If it could be done in a non-ugly way, this is exactly what I'd like to see happening on places like Queen West between University and Bathurst here, instead of the ugly condo boxes that are being thrown up.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 3:01 AM on March 28, 2015
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 3:01 AM on March 28, 2015
Resident of SW DC here.
There is plenty of development going on in DC - this article focused on the popups/add-ons in the NW quadrant of the city. You don't see this being done too much on the Hill, near as I can tell. Those houses are untouched and worth, if not millions, then right under that. Suspect the owners want to keep it that way.
It's going to be a figurative gunfight over development in SW DC in the next few years, given that the City has sworn not to displace the SW public housing residents across the river to Anacostia. Apparently, this happened some years back with SE DC and people are pretty pissed about it.
I've been told that development plans for the area keep stalling because no developer has come up with a way to be inclusive of the public housing residents in the area. Don't know how true that is, but it seems to pass for "conventional wisdom" around here.
posted by Thistledown at 4:09 AM on March 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
There is plenty of development going on in DC - this article focused on the popups/add-ons in the NW quadrant of the city. You don't see this being done too much on the Hill, near as I can tell. Those houses are untouched and worth, if not millions, then right under that. Suspect the owners want to keep it that way.
It's going to be a figurative gunfight over development in SW DC in the next few years, given that the City has sworn not to displace the SW public housing residents across the river to Anacostia. Apparently, this happened some years back with SE DC and people are pretty pissed about it.
I've been told that development plans for the area keep stalling because no developer has come up with a way to be inclusive of the public housing residents in the area. Don't know how true that is, but it seems to pass for "conventional wisdom" around here.
posted by Thistledown at 4:09 AM on March 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
My understanding is that a lot to Capitol Hill has been classified a historic district, which makes adding pop ups (and any other significant renovation) range from expensive to impossible.
posted by Karaage at 4:46 AM on March 28, 2015
posted by Karaage at 4:46 AM on March 28, 2015
enf: If you really want an ugly vertical extension, you've got to look to Boston.
I used to live there! We lovingly referred to it as the "trailer park in the sky."
posted by stripesandplaid at 5:59 AM on March 28, 2015
I used to live there! We lovingly referred to it as the "trailer park in the sky."
posted by stripesandplaid at 5:59 AM on March 28, 2015
> The best you can do is build a ton now and then wait. Wouldn't it be great if Seattle had done that 20-30 years ago?
Here in SF, the city couldn't get developers to build housing 15ish years ago. They all wanted to build office space.
There is housing being built now, but it's mostly on the luxury end of the scale, and there is no evidence at all that those properties are lowering costs on other properties or opening them up for people who want to live there. Rents are still bonkers and rising and very hard to get. There's a falling-down house way out in the Sunset that made the news recently because it was bought by flippers for half a mil over the asking price. Hell, there's a house on my unglamorous block that was bought by flippers for $2 million (!!!!) a few months ago - it had been occupied by squatters and pigeons for something like a decade before that.
posted by rtha at 7:22 AM on March 28, 2015
Here in SF, the city couldn't get developers to build housing 15ish years ago. They all wanted to build office space.
There is housing being built now, but it's mostly on the luxury end of the scale, and there is no evidence at all that those properties are lowering costs on other properties or opening them up for people who want to live there. Rents are still bonkers and rising and very hard to get. There's a falling-down house way out in the Sunset that made the news recently because it was bought by flippers for half a mil over the asking price. Hell, there's a house on my unglamorous block that was bought by flippers for $2 million (!!!!) a few months ago - it had been occupied by squatters and pigeons for something like a decade before that.
posted by rtha at 7:22 AM on March 28, 2015
There is housing being built now, but it's mostly on the luxury end of the scale
Margins are highest on luxury housing, so developers are going to go after that market first. And as I noted earlier, SF is just not building that much in absolute terms (and many of the in-demand nearby cities are building even less).
posted by ripley_ at 8:22 AM on March 28, 2015
Margins are highest on luxury housing, so developers are going to go after that market first. And as I noted earlier, SF is just not building that much in absolute terms (and many of the in-demand nearby cities are building even less).
posted by ripley_ at 8:22 AM on March 28, 2015
Margins are highest on luxury housing, so developers are going to go after that market first.
There's little evidence (based on the last tech boom) that they intend to go after any other market after they're "done" with building luxury housing. During the nationwide housing bust, prices here dropped, but not very much. They never drop very much here. If you get forced out of your kind-of-affordable rental, you are not magically going to find a less expensive one when more housing gets built or because Rich Guy moves into Expensive Apartment from a cheap one, because that cheap one is not going to remain cheap. Friends of mine in Oakland are moving from the apartment they moved into not very long ago because the building changed hands and the new owners are raising everyone's rents by as much as 50%.
posted by rtha at 8:41 AM on March 28, 2015 [4 favorites]
There's little evidence (based on the last tech boom) that they intend to go after any other market after they're "done" with building luxury housing. During the nationwide housing bust, prices here dropped, but not very much. They never drop very much here. If you get forced out of your kind-of-affordable rental, you are not magically going to find a less expensive one when more housing gets built or because Rich Guy moves into Expensive Apartment from a cheap one, because that cheap one is not going to remain cheap. Friends of mine in Oakland are moving from the apartment they moved into not very long ago because the building changed hands and the new owners are raising everyone's rents by as much as 50%.
posted by rtha at 8:41 AM on March 28, 2015 [4 favorites]
My memory of 15 years ago in San Francisco is that there was a fair amount of residential development going on, over the vocal objections of people who thought that the new development was going to change neighborhood character too much. It was the era of "Future Squats of San Francisco" pamphlets about the building at 88 Hoff, and of somebody torching the under-construction apartments next door to my then-office at 1338 Mission. And my rent did go down in 2003(?), although only to what was still an astounding multiple of what it had cost to live in Chicago.
Yes, it's a terrible time now to try to look for new housing, because there are still so many more people who want to live in the city, and can somehow afford to, than there are places to live. The city was cheap for 40 years because the suburbs built enough homes to meet all the housing demand and then some, even as San Francisco tore down a lot of its cheap old stock. I wish I had some idea how much new housing would have to be built to make it cheap again.
posted by enf at 12:02 PM on March 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
Yes, it's a terrible time now to try to look for new housing, because there are still so many more people who want to live in the city, and can somehow afford to, than there are places to live. The city was cheap for 40 years because the suburbs built enough homes to meet all the housing demand and then some, even as San Francisco tore down a lot of its cheap old stock. I wish I had some idea how much new housing would have to be built to make it cheap again.
posted by enf at 12:02 PM on March 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
There's little evidence (based on the last tech boom) that they intend to go after any other market after they're "done" with building luxury housing.
1) Developers do this in housing markets where there aren't hard caps on the number of units allowed, I'm not sure why you think SF is special. See: most of Texas.
2) This happens in pretty much every other sector. Profit margins are higher for Acuras, but Honda still sells a hell of a lot more cheap Hondas.
I also think you're seriously underestimating just how much more housing could be added to the Bay Area. Even in SF proper, about half of the land is zoned for single-family homes. Silicon Valley cities are even worse.
Rewriting single-family zoning to allow mid-rise apartments across the region could eventually add millions of additional housing units - that would do a lot more to help people live in the Bay Area than a housing stock growth rate that's 1/3 of Austin's.
posted by ripley_ at 3:00 PM on March 28, 2015
1) Developers do this in housing markets where there aren't hard caps on the number of units allowed, I'm not sure why you think SF is special. See: most of Texas.
2) This happens in pretty much every other sector. Profit margins are higher for Acuras, but Honda still sells a hell of a lot more cheap Hondas.
I also think you're seriously underestimating just how much more housing could be added to the Bay Area. Even in SF proper, about half of the land is zoned for single-family homes. Silicon Valley cities are even worse.
Rewriting single-family zoning to allow mid-rise apartments across the region could eventually add millions of additional housing units - that would do a lot more to help people live in the Bay Area than a housing stock growth rate that's 1/3 of Austin's.
posted by ripley_ at 3:00 PM on March 28, 2015
I also think you're seriously underestimating just how much more housing could be added to the Bay Area.
I'm not underestimating anything. Except maybe the tendency of people in threads like this to act like saying "they should just build more housing!" is A) an easy solution and B) something that hasn't occurred to people who live here.
The neighborhoods with the highest number of single-family homes are also those with the highest home ownership rates in the city. I'd be interested in seeing any housing incentive policies that could be conceived to induce developers to buy those home in the Outer Sunset, Excelsior/Ingleside, and the Bayview/Hunter's Point and create more dense housing developments.
posted by rtha at 5:10 PM on March 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm not underestimating anything. Except maybe the tendency of people in threads like this to act like saying "they should just build more housing!" is A) an easy solution and B) something that hasn't occurred to people who live here.
The neighborhoods with the highest number of single-family homes are also those with the highest home ownership rates in the city. I'd be interested in seeing any housing incentive policies that could be conceived to induce developers to buy those home in the Outer Sunset, Excelsior/Ingleside, and the Bayview/Hunter's Point and create more dense housing developments.
posted by rtha at 5:10 PM on March 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
The only reason developers don't buy single-family homes in the Sunset and Bayview and replace them with small apartment buildings (or pop them up) is that it isn't legal and hasn't been since the 1960s rezoning of the city. It's all zoned RH-1 or at most RH-2, which allows only one or two units per lot, and you can't subdivide the lot to build smaller rowhouses instead because of minimum lot size, frontage, and parking requirements. No economic incentive will work when it's trying to incentivize something that is simply forbidden.
posted by enf at 5:40 PM on March 28, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by enf at 5:40 PM on March 28, 2015 [2 favorites]
And for that matter, do you know why Seattle ends up with such weird-looking infill projects? Because that's the one multi-unit form that can be built legally and still conform to setback, lot coverage, parking, open-space, width, depth, and height requirements. Regulations, whether by intention or by accident, have made almost every other possibility illegal, so the thing that's still possible, even if nobody really likes it, is the thing that gets built.
posted by enf at 6:06 PM on March 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by enf at 6:06 PM on March 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
No economic incentive will work when it's trying to incentivize something that is simply forbidden.
Which is what makes the never-ending "just build more housing! there's lots of density that could be added in!" particularly irritating, as if this had never occurred to people who live here. There is no "just...[do obviously obvious thing!]" here, and reading variations on > Rewriting single-family zoning to allow mid-rise apartments across the region as if it's a new idea is tiresome.
posted by rtha at 7:24 PM on March 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
Which is what makes the never-ending "just build more housing! there's lots of density that could be added in!" particularly irritating, as if this had never occurred to people who live here. There is no "just...[do obviously obvious thing!]" here, and reading variations on > Rewriting single-family zoning to allow mid-rise apartments across the region as if it's a new idea is tiresome.
posted by rtha at 7:24 PM on March 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
Sorry about preaching to the choir. But the very premise of this thread is, "Why are people building these vertical additions that I don't like?" Somebody's got to be the one to say, "They're doing it because it's one of the few things that are legal and economical to build, and if you don't like it, urge your local politicians to make more things legal." Legalizing small apartment buildings on single lots is much more important ultimately than legalizing midrise, although the world needs more midrise too.
posted by enf at 7:41 PM on March 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by enf at 7:41 PM on March 28, 2015 [1 favorite]
rtha: Apologies. My experience has been that very few people know much about zoning in their own city, let alone the wider region they live in.
It sounds like you're saying that's not the case for most Bay Area residents, and I'm glad to hear it.
posted by ripley_ at 2:23 PM on March 29, 2015
It sounds like you're saying that's not the case for most Bay Area residents, and I'm glad to hear it.
posted by ripley_ at 2:23 PM on March 29, 2015
Potomac Avenue: "There's plenty of room in Anacostia y'all."
Not actually eponysterical, given that Potomac Ave is on Capitol Hill.
posted by Chrysostom at 7:12 AM on April 8, 2015
Not actually eponysterical, given that Potomac Ave is on Capitol Hill.
posted by Chrysostom at 7:12 AM on April 8, 2015
« Older On Swedish dads, paternity leave and adorable... | H₂WHOA! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by GuyZero at 2:17 PM on March 27, 2015 [3 favorites]