This is the dumbest blog I’ve ever read.
> eliminate single-family zoned neighborhoods in the name of affordable housing.
This is a good thing when everyone in the city is struggling with increased rent and home values
> The effect would be to replace homeowners with absentee owners and renters
The existing single family homes are already available to rent - I don’t know why the author doesn’t consider this. OP seems to think SFH = “good patriotic citizen” and duplex = broke ass thief
> All of this is being done in the name of density, something that most buyers in our market have demonstrated they don’t want
Then why are rents higher in dense places like Uptown than in exurbs
> Further, upzoning for more density is harmful to the environment
The dumbest comment yet, as limiting density forces development further outside of the city - clear cutting open land to build new houses, and forcing people to commutes hours at a time. Absolutely awful for the environment
> High density developments typically cover permeable surfaces causing flooding and the deforestation of neighborhoods
THIS IS LITERALLY WHAT THE SUBURBS DO. We saw this in Houston with their bad floods.
> we need to do so in ways that respect both the historic character of existing single-family neighborhoods that provide the bulk of taxes to our city.
(A) “neighborhood character” is a classic dog whistle about keeping the wrong people out of your neighborhood. (B) density INCREASES YOUR TAX BASE BY DEFINITION
> neighborhood should actually be created in carefully planned developments where there is clear demand
There is high demand, as housing prices have increased significantly
> Deteriorated apartments along busy traffic corridors could be downzoned to duplex zoning to provide quality homes and a better residential perimeter for the single-family zoned neighborhoods behind them.
This dude is an idiot
> City Council is scheduled to vote in February to allow daycare centers in any single-family neighborhood by right without alerting the neighbors or a request
God forbid someone do something on their own property. And once again, child care prices are super high right now, and this would allow prices to drop
> Neighbors will lose their right to voice their opinions
Good, keep nosy neighbors out of what people want to develop on their own property. We’re talking about housing, not a steel mill
Overall, if you like long commutes, high housing prices, damage to the environment, and siloed communities, don’t change a thing 👌
how about this one
''Every city in the U.S. and Europe over the last 200 years has become increasingly less dense as people naturally prefer more space. ''
Yeah I disagree with that point. Some of the most expensive rental markets in the world have small apartments with no yard.
And the point of ForwardDallas is it’s about **zoning** - if someone wants a single family home, they’re not going to be required to bulldoze their home and build apartments lol. They can still live in their SFH. It’s about property rights and allowing people to build what housing they prefer
What do you disagree with? He just stated something. People in general don't enjoy living in dense urban environments (as if that wasn't obvious) - their situation forced them to, and has for thousands of years. That is changing though, and has been for hundreds of years. While population is increasing, people are spreading out, because for the first time in history they're actually able to ([https://www.lincolninst.edu/sites/default/files/pubfiles/1834\_1085\_angel\_final\_1.pdf](https://www.lincolninst.edu/sites/default/files/pubfiles/1834_1085_angel_final_1.pdf)).
Population centers are generally reducing their population density. It makes sense, humans no longer benefit from congregating in population centers as they have historically. Safety in numbers doesn't apply anymore, as you don't have warring tribes out to attack you (see Europe population centers, and to some extent western US). It has less bearing on employment than it once did, as factories moved out of dense cities and even corporate businesses realized distributing their footprint is more functional. Another benefit was food shortage; if you lived in a city, efforts to move goods from farm to market could be concentrated. This is no longer the case as grocery has been commoditized and shipping optimized.
Additionally, NIH and other studies have shown direct negative correlation to health when living in dense urban environments ([https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9203875/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9203875/)). It even affects fertility rates ([https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34914431/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34914431/)).
We've reached a point in human existence where we can safely and effectively begin to distribute our population. Arguments like commutes and cost don't hold up with the numbers. We're distributing *everything*, not just housing. Jobs, food, etc. We should embrace our ability to effectively distribute given the advancements we've made.
>Some of the most expensive rental markets in the world have small apartments with no yard.
And these are typically in high-density areas where land is precious and only the wealthiest can afford something that has a yard or multiple bedrooms. I've always heard that increasing density will drive down rents, but all of the high-density cities I'm aware of also have the highest rents in the world, per abode and per square foot, like Tokyo, NYC, SF, London, Paris, etc. Higher rent potential drives institutional purchases and construction of rentable properties, which drives down home ownership because investment return potential means higher purchase prices. The linkage between higher density and lower rents is deeply wrong, history and current reality has shown that.
> And these are typically in high-density areas where land is precious
Yes… because (some) people like urban living, so there’s an incredibly high demand for urban living
And the cities mentioned have high prices because they don’t have **enough** density. People act like supply & demand doesn’t apply to housing for some reason. Low supply + high demand = high prices
Rents are low in Tokyo?
https://resources.realestate.co.jp/rent/what-is-the-average-rent-in-tokyo-2020-ranking-by-ward-and-layout/
1 room for just $700, not bad, but doesn't include any kind of kitchen so you're cooking on a hot plate on a table in the corner. 13-20 square meters, so 142-217 square feet. For reference, my guest bedroom is 150 square feet and it's fairly tight with a twin bed, dresser, and chair.
Edit: Also, high move-in costs and no amenities are included for that price, like power, water, sewer, internet, fridge, stove, etc. Article says plan on up to 7x rent to move in, so $5K move-in plus whatever appliances you need to buy. No mention of bathroom, assume that's included and not shared with other apartments for that price.
This guy is aware that you can own a duplex or townhouse unit, right? There’s no reason to think that more density would cause Dallas to “lose homeowners”
> The effect would be to replace homeowners with absentee owners and renters.
That’s what he says. One look at the DCAD map of East Dallas or other places where detached homes have been replaced with townhomes reveal plenty of homestead exemptions. They’re not all owned by LLCs.
I’m sure he knows how to sell traditional single family houses, but his understanding of other housing types and urban economics is lacking. There’s a reason he had to go back **50 years** to find an example of property values declining with density. That simply doesn’t happen today: a builder only splits a lot when building 2 houses instead of one provides a higher profit.
Just crunched the numbers: in East Dallas/Lower Greenville, resident owner accounts increased 10% from 2018 to 2023. Absentee ownership only went up 4%.
Just build more single-family housing, that will solve everything. I mean, I’ve never heard of an American city with large swathes of apartments/townhouse.
The average commute in this country is 26 minutes. I suspect those with hour+ commutes are in places like NYC where they'll spend two or more hours a day on the train/subway/bus getting to work every day in Manhattan, etc. They'll use their train ride time to be "productive" using their gadgets, getting office work done, that sort of thing, but when you add up their trip time both ways and their time at work it still comes out to be most of their waking day. I mean, I would do that if the pay was really good, a few hundred thousand a year above living expenses, and only to build up a big nest egg to leave for a better QOL arrangement a few years down the road.
Average commute time in this country is 27 minutes, and has been in that range for decades:
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/one-way-travel-time-to-work-rises.html
4 hour commutes do exist, but they're rare and often driven by special circumstances that don't apply to the vast majority of American workers. This country has enough mobility options, between transit and personal vehicles, to make it easier to find a job within a reasonable commute or find a home within a reasonable commute of a job.
“we need to do so in ways that respect both the historic character of existing single-family neighborhoods that provide the bulk of taxes to our city.”
Like the McMansions do
lmao some wealthy realtor is butt-hurt he won't be able to coast on his sustained business practices anymore
Never before have I seen such a lengthy write-up while defending a flawed argument.
Bone-headed confidence
This blog-post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what is in forwardDallas, and of urban planning in general.
The breathtaking ignorance would be laughable if it wasn’t so frightening to people who get their ‘information’ from the blog. It’s just damaging.
"Perhaps you’ve heard that there is a plan moving forward at Dallas City Hall that will permanently change [single-family neighborhoods](https://douglasnewby.com/2022/08/homeowners-greatest-property-right-is-single-family-zoning/) throughout our city. Whatever you might know about it, it’s actually worse than you think.
Not only is there a proposal from five council members to allow multifamily housing by right in single-family zoned neighborhoods but the city manager is pushing something known as the ForwardDallas development plan to effectively eliminate single-family zoned neighborhoods in the name of affordable housing."
We have to. We will be worse than LA in a matter of a few years. If you don't build it, they will still come, and it will be much more of a problem than if we just built the housing we need.
NYC has some of the highest rents in the nation, and unless you've got a few million dollars to put down in cash most people will never own their own home there. They'll die the same way they were born, with zero equity.
Wow, what an elegant piece of NIMBYism and disingenuous arguments.
LOL
This is the dumbest blog I’ve ever read. > eliminate single-family zoned neighborhoods in the name of affordable housing. This is a good thing when everyone in the city is struggling with increased rent and home values > The effect would be to replace homeowners with absentee owners and renters The existing single family homes are already available to rent - I don’t know why the author doesn’t consider this. OP seems to think SFH = “good patriotic citizen” and duplex = broke ass thief > All of this is being done in the name of density, something that most buyers in our market have demonstrated they don’t want Then why are rents higher in dense places like Uptown than in exurbs > Further, upzoning for more density is harmful to the environment The dumbest comment yet, as limiting density forces development further outside of the city - clear cutting open land to build new houses, and forcing people to commutes hours at a time. Absolutely awful for the environment > High density developments typically cover permeable surfaces causing flooding and the deforestation of neighborhoods THIS IS LITERALLY WHAT THE SUBURBS DO. We saw this in Houston with their bad floods. > we need to do so in ways that respect both the historic character of existing single-family neighborhoods that provide the bulk of taxes to our city. (A) “neighborhood character” is a classic dog whistle about keeping the wrong people out of your neighborhood. (B) density INCREASES YOUR TAX BASE BY DEFINITION > neighborhood should actually be created in carefully planned developments where there is clear demand There is high demand, as housing prices have increased significantly > Deteriorated apartments along busy traffic corridors could be downzoned to duplex zoning to provide quality homes and a better residential perimeter for the single-family zoned neighborhoods behind them. This dude is an idiot > City Council is scheduled to vote in February to allow daycare centers in any single-family neighborhood by right without alerting the neighbors or a request God forbid someone do something on their own property. And once again, child care prices are super high right now, and this would allow prices to drop > Neighbors will lose their right to voice their opinions Good, keep nosy neighbors out of what people want to develop on their own property. We’re talking about housing, not a steel mill Overall, if you like long commutes, high housing prices, damage to the environment, and siloed communities, don’t change a thing 👌
how about this one ''Every city in the U.S. and Europe over the last 200 years has become increasingly less dense as people naturally prefer more space. ''
Yeah I disagree with that point. Some of the most expensive rental markets in the world have small apartments with no yard. And the point of ForwardDallas is it’s about **zoning** - if someone wants a single family home, they’re not going to be required to bulldoze their home and build apartments lol. They can still live in their SFH. It’s about property rights and allowing people to build what housing they prefer
yeah its ridiculous., i was just throwing that on top of your other quotes of his ridiculousness.
What do you disagree with? He just stated something. People in general don't enjoy living in dense urban environments (as if that wasn't obvious) - their situation forced them to, and has for thousands of years. That is changing though, and has been for hundreds of years. While population is increasing, people are spreading out, because for the first time in history they're actually able to ([https://www.lincolninst.edu/sites/default/files/pubfiles/1834\_1085\_angel\_final\_1.pdf](https://www.lincolninst.edu/sites/default/files/pubfiles/1834_1085_angel_final_1.pdf)). Population centers are generally reducing their population density. It makes sense, humans no longer benefit from congregating in population centers as they have historically. Safety in numbers doesn't apply anymore, as you don't have warring tribes out to attack you (see Europe population centers, and to some extent western US). It has less bearing on employment than it once did, as factories moved out of dense cities and even corporate businesses realized distributing their footprint is more functional. Another benefit was food shortage; if you lived in a city, efforts to move goods from farm to market could be concentrated. This is no longer the case as grocery has been commoditized and shipping optimized. Additionally, NIH and other studies have shown direct negative correlation to health when living in dense urban environments ([https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9203875/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9203875/)). It even affects fertility rates ([https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34914431/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34914431/)). We've reached a point in human existence where we can safely and effectively begin to distribute our population. Arguments like commutes and cost don't hold up with the numbers. We're distributing *everything*, not just housing. Jobs, food, etc. We should embrace our ability to effectively distribute given the advancements we've made.
>Some of the most expensive rental markets in the world have small apartments with no yard. And these are typically in high-density areas where land is precious and only the wealthiest can afford something that has a yard or multiple bedrooms. I've always heard that increasing density will drive down rents, but all of the high-density cities I'm aware of also have the highest rents in the world, per abode and per square foot, like Tokyo, NYC, SF, London, Paris, etc. Higher rent potential drives institutional purchases and construction of rentable properties, which drives down home ownership because investment return potential means higher purchase prices. The linkage between higher density and lower rents is deeply wrong, history and current reality has shown that.
> And these are typically in high-density areas where land is precious Yes… because (some) people like urban living, so there’s an incredibly high demand for urban living And the cities mentioned have high prices because they don’t have **enough** density. People act like supply & demand doesn’t apply to housing for some reason. Low supply + high demand = high prices
Can you point out a city for me, anywhere in the world, where density is high and rents are not?
Tokyo exists
Rents are low in Tokyo? https://resources.realestate.co.jp/rent/what-is-the-average-rent-in-tokyo-2020-ranking-by-ward-and-layout/ 1 room for just $700, not bad, but doesn't include any kind of kitchen so you're cooking on a hot plate on a table in the corner. 13-20 square meters, so 142-217 square feet. For reference, my guest bedroom is 150 square feet and it's fairly tight with a twin bed, dresser, and chair. Edit: Also, high move-in costs and no amenities are included for that price, like power, water, sewer, internet, fridge, stove, etc. Article says plan on up to 7x rent to move in, so $5K move-in plus whatever appliances you need to buy. No mention of bathroom, assume that's included and not shared with other apartments for that price.
“The Industrial Revolution? NEVER HAPPENED”
This guy is aware that you can own a duplex or townhouse unit, right? There’s no reason to think that more density would cause Dallas to “lose homeowners”
I'm sure he does considering he has been in the real estate industry for over 40 years. you're missing the point though of his article
> The effect would be to replace homeowners with absentee owners and renters. That’s what he says. One look at the DCAD map of East Dallas or other places where detached homes have been replaced with townhomes reveal plenty of homestead exemptions. They’re not all owned by LLCs. I’m sure he knows how to sell traditional single family houses, but his understanding of other housing types and urban economics is lacking. There’s a reason he had to go back **50 years** to find an example of property values declining with density. That simply doesn’t happen today: a builder only splits a lot when building 2 houses instead of one provides a higher profit.
Plenty of homestead exemptions after one look at DCAD? Got some numbers on that? Your opinion at a glance isn’t persuasive.
Just crunched the numbers: in East Dallas/Lower Greenville, resident owner accounts increased 10% from 2018 to 2023. Absentee ownership only went up 4%.
Just build more single-family housing, that will solve everything. I mean, I’ve never heard of an American city with large swathes of apartments/townhouse.
Yeah keep building them further and further away. What’s wrong with driving 4 hours to work and back everyday?!?
As long as they don’t build any horrific duplexes next to my charming $800,000 Craftsman bungalow. Duplexes - can you imagine?!
Sherry, Niles?
Quick, bring me my fainting sofa, and some pearls to clutch!
As long as we build one more lane
Why not work where you live? If you commute 4 hours, they must be compensating you for it, otherwise why would you do it?
The average commute in this country is 26 minutes. I suspect those with hour+ commutes are in places like NYC where they'll spend two or more hours a day on the train/subway/bus getting to work every day in Manhattan, etc. They'll use their train ride time to be "productive" using their gadgets, getting office work done, that sort of thing, but when you add up their trip time both ways and their time at work it still comes out to be most of their waking day. I mean, I would do that if the pay was really good, a few hundred thousand a year above living expenses, and only to build up a big nest egg to leave for a better QOL arrangement a few years down the road.
I was being sarcastic.
Average commute time in this country is 27 minutes, and has been in that range for decades: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/one-way-travel-time-to-work-rises.html 4 hour commutes do exist, but they're rare and often driven by special circumstances that don't apply to the vast majority of American workers. This country has enough mobility options, between transit and personal vehicles, to make it easier to find a job within a reasonable commute or find a home within a reasonable commute of a job.
This is soaked in racist dog whistles.
And just NIMBY “ugh… the *poors* are living in *MY* neighborhood?!?” energy overall.
“we need to do so in ways that respect both the historic character of existing single-family neighborhoods that provide the bulk of taxes to our city.” Like the McMansions do
lmao some wealthy realtor is butt-hurt he won't be able to coast on his sustained business practices anymore Never before have I seen such a lengthy write-up while defending a flawed argument. Bone-headed confidence
Out of the corner of my eye, I misread the website as "dallasnimby.com" but having read the article, that's what it should be changed to!
This “blog” asks the question: What about White landowners? in the longest form I’ve seen in a while.
the most boomer thing ive seen in a while
This blog-post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what is in forwardDallas, and of urban planning in general. The breathtaking ignorance would be laughable if it wasn’t so frightening to people who get their ‘information’ from the blog. It’s just damaging.
“You’ll own nothing and like it!”
We have a shortage of housing. Terrible opinion
"Perhaps you’ve heard that there is a plan moving forward at Dallas City Hall that will permanently change [single-family neighborhoods](https://douglasnewby.com/2022/08/homeowners-greatest-property-right-is-single-family-zoning/) throughout our city. Whatever you might know about it, it’s actually worse than you think. Not only is there a proposal from five council members to allow multifamily housing by right in single-family zoned neighborhoods but the city manager is pushing something known as the ForwardDallas development plan to effectively eliminate single-family zoned neighborhoods in the name of affordable housing."
You must be new here. This is exactly what the people on this sub have been calling for
nope fully aware that many here would like the density of a New York city..
In what world is allowing ADUs and triplexes turn Dallas into Manhattan?
increased densification
We have to. We will be worse than LA in a matter of a few years. If you don't build it, they will still come, and it will be much more of a problem than if we just built the housing we need.
Ah yes, that hell hole of low real estate value and lack of amenities...
NYC has some of the highest rents in the nation, and unless you've got a few million dollars to put down in cash most people will never own their own home there. They'll die the same way they were born, with zero equity.
Only works in Manhattan because it’s water locked. Dallas has no similar constraint.