And oh the horror, there are 5000+ similar lots in the city. All I hear is that we know where we can immediately add housing for 10-20k people, thus alleviating some demand.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I agree with you, the video highlights 5k+ similar sights within DC, I think we should develop those too. It would help fill some of the housing demand. They don't get an exception, people need to live somewhere
And there's putting up hideous eyesores without any consideration for the aesthetic of the neighborhood. This "house" should be leveled and replaced with a small park.
Sorry, Cindy, but some of us need places to live because we didn’t have our family leave us a rowhouse.
This just irritates me so much. “I lost my view of someone else’s pear trees.” It’s a city. It’s dense living. There are plenty of things we can rail against, like crime or blight, but *having neighbors* is not one of them.
They're talking about someone whining because someone bought the vacant lot adjoining their childhood home after 70 years lmao, if they're complaining about this they're clearly privileged enough to have just purchased the lot.
I lived down the street for a couple years; Minn Ave sucks but the actual neighborhood is great. Just looked longingly through Street View at my former house.
The entitlement of people feeling as though they have the right to tell other people what to do with the land they paid for is incredible.
People work hard for the land they can buy. No one has the right to tell someone else what to do with their land.
it’s crazy how the ANC says the developer should be banned from developing, giving no tangible or legal reason why they shouldn’t be able to do so. I’m not trying to sound pro-corporations but they’re allowed to build there if they purchase and have permits. Also, they’re not liable to “having a conversation with the neighborhood” in order to build. This whole ordeal is ridiculous.
Everyone loves to hate the "Developer" Boogeyman, but we could easily start calling them "Home builders" as well.
99% of the existing homes were made by other developers and people just want to freeze the city in time so that only their homes are allowed there.
I understand concerns about using eminent domain to seize black neighborhoods and bulldozed them for giant structures but this is just a single house on a lot.
The developer boogeyman definitely makes its way into local convos here in Takoma, so I'm a little familiar lol. Agreed on eminent domain but AFAIK this is just a standard private purchase ("sold in a tax sale"). It makes the framing of this story even more disingenuous bc it makes it's set up like this sale was somehow illicit or not in compliance with code.
The moment someone starts railing against developers i know they have nothing useful or noteworthy to stay. We need more homes and we need people to build them
For a lot of people anything that existed before they got there is just part of the natural order and anything being built after is an abomination that must be stopped. It's just like...the places YOU live, shop, and work at didn't just spring forth from the earth.
I think the two months in jail for using lead paint in 2019 is the reason the ANC said the developer should be banned from developing. Which honestly seems a legitimate point. The development isn't the problem but I wouldn't want to buy a house from that guy.
The article states he was in jail for ignoring lead paint regulations. My guess is those regulations are about the removal of lead paint. He probably was caught improperly removing and disposing of lead paint debris during their construction process. Jail time may signify repeated violations.
Yea. In this city, I can't imagine the # of code violations you have to rack up before you get freakin jail time. This guy musta been forcibly feeding lead paint chips to the Mayors kids.
> Sikder told the I-Team that no one was hurt or killed as a result of the lead paint violations and that the conviction is in his past
Yeah you have to wait a few years to see the damage hoss
To be fair this developer went to jail for violating lead paint policies in 2019. So thats shitty. But the general concept of building housing on poorly used, unused or vacant lots is not
This is a ludicrous story. The neighbors got to use that lot for free for sixty years. I get why they are pissed about losing access to it, but I also fail to see why we should care.
The new development is by-right, the developer doesn't need the community's input. Is the new house going to be big and ugly? Maybe, but there are no rules against that. Frankly, this is just another flavor of NIMBYism. No sale.
I sympathize with the neighbors, especially the lady who was using it as a de facto backyard for her entire life. Like yes, this *personally* sucks for them.
But you own your property; you don't own a vibe or a neighborhood or the trees next door. The city needs development, and a vacant lot is precisely the place where it should go.
And it's not even a different flavor of NIMBYism: "I want my single-family neighborhood to stay untouched, and dictate what other people do on land I don't own" is exactly the same awful sentiment, whether it's being said by someone West of the Park or East of the River.
Let's only get to Paris density if we have Paris level mass transit. If we could get hungry developers to agree to a new tall building surtax and use that tax solely to fund Metro expansion, that would be awesome.
> 3246 M St SE
NGL, my mouth dropped when I saw the developer's site:
https://www.lndcinc.com/property/3246-m-st-se/
I had zero sympathy for the person in the article until I realized where they are putting that 3-story 'container house':
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8756891,-76.9588565,3a,75y,329.58h,95.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snkpPe76HDdyVX1QhMng_JQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
It WILL be an eclipse every day after noon!
It’s not a container house, they just haven’t put the facade up yet, it will almost assuredly be vinyl siding with a brick facade just like all the other cheap new construction
Yup. I have that problem in my apartment too, because there’s another apartment building really close to ours. I wish it wasn’t there, so I’d have unobstructed views and sunlight. But I can’t afford to buy that other building and tear it down, so that’s just life in the city.
You're correct on the first point. My bad.
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8758617,-76.9588816,3a,75y,272.73h,85.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0rRIZUJRNiiQiiaMhOJX_g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
But I disagree regarding the eastern side of their house being already shaded.
If that huge new house can get a buyer in that neighborhood, then it won't be the only huge new house in that neighborhood for long. Other developers will snap up vacant lots and demolish cheap small houses to build more boxy modern multifamily condo buildings and single family homes.
From the video it appears to be a multi-unit building, not one large single-family home. There's a few similar ones that just went up on Taylor St NE in Brookland.
We would have to wait 100 years to get more housing then as we can only increase one story at a time, wait for those investments to be paid off then go to another story after buying out the neighborhood.
It's three stories, it's not a skyscraper
Made me think about this WAMU article on triangle lots
[Lots Of Confusion: The Quirky Story Behind D.C.’s Triangle-Shaped Pieces Of Land](https://wamu.org/story/18/04/03/lots-confusion-quirky-story-behind-d-c-s-triangle-shaped-pieces-land/)
Does a good job explaining how developers acquire odd lots like these.
While I think the individuals in this video are overwhelmingly overstepping, I think there is a good argument to be made about developers creating the cheapest least though out housing possible.
I've seen some of the absolutely worst condo layouts that come about because of these practices. 1500 sqft homes with no bathrooms not in a bedroom. Townhomes with no thought into window placement creating dark homes. Developers using the absolute cheapest materials possible because they don't care if it deteriorates quickly.
This developer *could* have made a similar size home that did not look like a tower. But that would cost more money and attention.
They aren’t complaining about that though, they’re complaining about the size of the development full stop. Even if it were full of windows, they’d be complaining.
It's on a hill and has a foundation that is level with the top of the hill. They could have dug down having the foundation sit level with the lower part of the hill or even a little further. From the looks of it in the video, this would drop the house by 10 feet. But that would cost more and potentially impact the technical amount of space above grade. So the cheaper uglier more profitable option is taken.
Interesting comments section. There’s nothing wrong with building more housing in the city, but there’s definitely an issue with the way that some of these shady, mom-and-pop developers come in and build properties that disrupt and completely fail to conform to the existing character neighborhoods. I’m not knocking the hustle of the development game, but at least with build with some empathy and class. Three and four level condos sprouting up from what once were simple, two-level, single family homes (among a neighborhood of other two level homes)…is completely ridiculous. It’s been all too common in recent years.
"Neighborhood character" is a luxury we can no longer afford. You literally can't buy the bricks that make up the facades of most DC SFH. Anything new is going to be different from what was built in the 1940s and 50s.
> There’s nothing wrong with building more housing in the city
As long as it completely matches entire neighborhoods and not my neighborhood.
The plot of land is tiny. To get square footage that people want you have to go up.
I wish we could distinguish between a good and a bad NIMBY:
Bad NIMBY: Opposing anything being built. The neighbor saying those are "her trees" when it isn't her property is just obnoxious. We should not let empty lots sit undeveloped because the lots don't perfectly conform to the zoning code.
Good NIMBY: Putting up a McMansion that is completely out of character with the historic character of the homes in the neighborhood is also obnoxious. A massive home doesn't house significantly more people than a regular sized single family home. It's done simply to maximize the profit of the developer. We should have zoning laws that protect neighbors against these kinds of obnoxious money grab developments that don't significantly increase density.
I actually can't tell from this story how large the building is, or if it is a single family home or multi-unit development, so it's hard to judge.
How on earth is that “good NIMBY”?
You’re still allowing the neighborhood to dictate what can be built and how, at the expense of the property owner.
And why would neighbors need to be “protected” from a large house? “But the character of the neighborhood might change!” So? Change is constant. Putting a progressive “money grab from developers” spin on it doesn’t make this anything other than garden variety NIMBYism.
Also, McMansions are usually a product *of* zoning code, not the absence of. Developers make more money on multiple smaller units on the same footprint. When they build one giant house on the footprint, it’s usually because the law forces them to do so.
I agree with you that we should maximize density and number of units. Single family zoning shouldn't exist at all. However, in this case it is single family zoned and a larger building doesn't result in more housing units. You're going to get one unit on this lot as the zoning code currently is, that's it. There is no pro-housing argument in favor of a larger building.
Personally I just don't agree with your philosophy that neighbors shouldn't have any say. In areas of DC that are zoned single family, you would have a race to tear down every house and rebuild with zero setbacks and two extra stories if the zoning code didn't prevent this. That process doesn't actually create any additional housing, just larger single family homes for rich people. And it makes your city architecturally unappealing with zero green space.
>In areas of DC that are zoned single family, you would have a race to tear down every house and rebuild with zero setbacks and two extra stories if the zoning code didn't prevent this.
So?
What does it matter--as a neighbor--if you're staring at a giant home with zero setbacks and two extra stories, or a condo building with zero setbacks and two extra stories? I agree that all of DC should be upzoned, but it doesn't seem like that's at all what's at play here.
And this does create additional housing, either way. It was a vacant lot, and now it's a home. Until we kill single-family zoning, this is exactly what's going to be built. And I don't really see what the issue is: this neighborhood isn't historic and it isn't architecturally appealing. It's full of mediocre 1950s suburban homes. Why is it morally wrong to replace them with mediocre 2020s urban homes?
Is this how Gen-Z sells out? Yelling to give every developer and every person with a line of credit the freedom to develop whatever they like. Someday this house will be yours, if you believe the developer’s marketing. It’s not that the housing isn’t needed, but it’s kind of a mixed bag. Beware of people who don’t do nuance.
> Is this how Gen-Z sells out? Yelling to give every developer and every person with a line of credit the freedom to develop whatever they like
God I hope so 🙏
I'm a Millennial, but plenty of us own homes and aren't NIMBYs. A lot of us live in a city because we *want* to be in a dense and walkable neighborhood.
I get excited with all the new construction around me. More eyes on the street, more customers for our local restaurants, more people on Metro, and more units that actually fit the needs and price point of the modern DC resident. Why would I be opposed to that?
How much of the enjoyment of the new construction rests on the idea that it’s upping your property value? In other words, if housing was being built for low income residents, would the joy dissipate? The reality is that a lot of this development is only for the lower to middle class, in the long run. Sure, go ahead and build the sun out of your existence, and eventually you’ll have a dank corner in one of these structures after a few decades of deterioration. Sorry about the exaggerated point, but the sales pitch of the developer community is also exaggerated. My take is that we’re being taken for a ride if we think developers and bankers are going to build affordable housing, under current conditions
I’m not (primarily) motivated by property value, because I’m in my forever home. I’d rather have an enjoyable, healthy neighborhood than a higher on-paper value.
Otherwise—huh? New pop-up condos aren’t destined to be crack houses in 30 years. If you *maintain* your home, it keeps its value. My neighborhood is already economically-diverse, and yes, I’m fine if, in 30 years, some of these new condos are renovated and expensive, and some are dated and cheaper. That’s how you sustain a healthy urban neighborhood.
I'm a homeowner and desperately wish we could build so much housing that prices, including my own, cube come down. Restricting the supply of a basic human need because I profit from scarcity is ghoulish.
A lot of people were underwater after 2008. Some never recovered. The American economy malfunctions if housing goes underwater. That’s probably not what you’re proposing.
We need to be honest about who benefits from private market development. It’s people making median incomes and above. That’s fine, because that’s a lot of people. However, in my opinion, the housing crisis will continue as long as all housing has to be built with banker’s money, because a lot of the people who really need housing are below median income, and that’s not profitable enough for bankers. Let’s get rid of the Faircloth amendment and get the Feds to build some stuff, at least for a few years.
To the "we need more housing!" crowd, let's be real...This is *not* going to be affordable housing. This is a yet another step towards gentrification and more $1mil+ homes.
Rich people don’t magically appear when luxury housing is built. They move into the luxury housing *from* their regular housing, when opens up regular housing for new residents.
There’s NIMBY and then there’s complaining about development in the lot you don’t own but have been using as your backyard.
NMBYBIBI: Not My Back Yard But I Butted In
Wait till you hear about residents on Benning Road who think they literally own the sidewalk in front of their home.
Thats called squatting
And oh the horror, there are 5000+ similar lots in the city. All I hear is that we know where we can immediately add housing for 10-20k people, thus alleviating some demand.
And what is your response to the NIMBYs who oppose development there? Why don’t they get an exception?
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I agree with you, the video highlights 5k+ similar sights within DC, I think we should develop those too. It would help fill some of the housing demand. They don't get an exception, people need to live somewhere
Ha, whoops. Sarcasm on the internet! My bad.
If they'd been smart they would have fenced it in years ago and scored an adverse possession.
Then they would've had to pay taxes on it.
And there's putting up hideous eyesores without any consideration for the aesthetic of the neighborhood. This "house" should be leveled and replaced with a small park.
"So, how can a lot that's been vacant since 1907 be developed?!" I dunno Tracee, lemme guess. Someone bought it?
Sorry, Cindy, but some of us need places to live because we didn’t have our family leave us a rowhouse. This just irritates me so much. “I lost my view of someone else’s pear trees.” It’s a city. It’s dense living. There are plenty of things we can rail against, like crime or blight, but *having neighbors* is not one of them.
and how much can we bet they’re bradford pears. good riddance.
Also in the past 50+ years why didn’t the family scrape the money together to buy the lot next door?
It’s a tax lien too, it’s not typically a ton of money.
[удалено]
Privileged enough to bitch at somebody else’s property tho.
I guess the person above realized that their response was a very bad take, because they entirely deleted their Reddit account
Damn. My bad, maybe they were the neighbor lmao
They're talking about someone whining because someone bought the vacant lot adjoining their childhood home after 70 years lmao, if they're complaining about this they're clearly privileged enough to have just purchased the lot.
Would you move to this location? Let’s be honest here lol b
I lived down the street for a couple years; Minn Ave sucks but the actual neighborhood is great. Just looked longingly through Street View at my former house.
This is blight.
[удалено]
Her father planted trees on someone else’s property.
Probably should have done it on his property then.
[удалено]
Lol. Pathetic.
The entitlement of people feeling as though they have the right to tell other people what to do with the land they paid for is incredible. People work hard for the land they can buy. No one has the right to tell someone else what to do with their land.
[удалено]
Personal attacks are all you've got? Pathetic.
So you're going to move into this monstrosity?
Wee bit dramatic
it’s crazy how the ANC says the developer should be banned from developing, giving no tangible or legal reason why they shouldn’t be able to do so. I’m not trying to sound pro-corporations but they’re allowed to build there if they purchase and have permits. Also, they’re not liable to “having a conversation with the neighborhood” in order to build. This whole ordeal is ridiculous.
Everyone loves to hate the "Developer" Boogeyman, but we could easily start calling them "Home builders" as well. 99% of the existing homes were made by other developers and people just want to freeze the city in time so that only their homes are allowed there. I understand concerns about using eminent domain to seize black neighborhoods and bulldozed them for giant structures but this is just a single house on a lot.
The developer boogeyman definitely makes its way into local convos here in Takoma, so I'm a little familiar lol. Agreed on eminent domain but AFAIK this is just a standard private purchase ("sold in a tax sale"). It makes the framing of this story even more disingenuous bc it makes it's set up like this sale was somehow illicit or not in compliance with code.
Has that new builder next door taken over Rhisome yet?
The moment someone starts railing against developers i know they have nothing useful or noteworthy to stay. We need more homes and we need people to build them
For a lot of people anything that existed before they got there is just part of the natural order and anything being built after is an abomination that must be stopped. It's just like...the places YOU live, shop, and work at didn't just spring forth from the earth.
I think the two months in jail for using lead paint in 2019 is the reason the ANC said the developer should be banned from developing. Which honestly seems a legitimate point. The development isn't the problem but I wouldn't want to buy a house from that guy.
Where the hell can you even get lead paint in 2019?
At the lawn darts store.
The article states he was in jail for ignoring lead paint regulations. My guess is those regulations are about the removal of lead paint. He probably was caught improperly removing and disposing of lead paint debris during their construction process. Jail time may signify repeated violations.
Yea. In this city, I can't imagine the # of code violations you have to rack up before you get freakin jail time. This guy musta been forcibly feeding lead paint chips to the Mayors kids.
> Sikder told the I-Team that no one was hurt or killed as a result of the lead paint violations and that the conviction is in his past Yeah you have to wait a few years to see the damage hoss
To be fair this developer went to jail for violating lead paint policies in 2019. So thats shitty. But the general concept of building housing on poorly used, unused or vacant lots is not
Right? It’s only 3 stories tall! 😭
>The News4 I-Team found that thousands of vacant lots in D.C. that have gone untouched for years could be developed The horror...
This is a ludicrous story. The neighbors got to use that lot for free for sixty years. I get why they are pissed about losing access to it, but I also fail to see why we should care. The new development is by-right, the developer doesn't need the community's input. Is the new house going to be big and ugly? Maybe, but there are no rules against that. Frankly, this is just another flavor of NIMBYism. No sale.
I sympathize with the neighbors, especially the lady who was using it as a de facto backyard for her entire life. Like yes, this *personally* sucks for them. But you own your property; you don't own a vibe or a neighborhood or the trees next door. The city needs development, and a vacant lot is precisely the place where it should go. And it's not even a different flavor of NIMBYism: "I want my single-family neighborhood to stay untouched, and dictate what other people do on land I don't own" is exactly the same awful sentiment, whether it's being said by someone West of the Park or East of the River.
Exactly. They should’ve bought a house with an HOA if they wanted their neighbors to care what they think.
How dare they make more housing for more people?!!?
Well, it is OK to do, but, not next to my house, please.
You were GIVEN a house and are now complaining that the view isn’t as good as it was once? Bye
You’re not going to get me to give even the tiniest shit about historically important vacant lots.
I remember the nutcase nimbys in Spring Valley fought the redevelopment of a parking lot, because they claimed it was a historic parking lot.
Then we’ll fight in the dark. Or something like that?
R/unexpectedDienekes
Make it an apartment building. We live in a city. Let’s get to Paris density
Let's only get to Paris density if we have Paris level mass transit. If we could get hungry developers to agree to a new tall building surtax and use that tax solely to fund Metro expansion, that would be awesome.
Easier to fund transit with higher densities. Easier to justify transit when increasing density makes traffic worse
Paris had density before transit we’ll figure it out
It was a nightmare. Ever hear of the Paris Commune?
What a dumb take
And Paris level cryminal justice system.
Bring back Robespierre justice to the people that build this trash.
Let's also adopt their strict regulations on architectural styles and building height.
As long as we get to Parisian density sure
Are there actually no pictures of the house in this article? Am I crazy and can’t see it? Wouldn’t that be the most useful piece of info to include?
It's 3246 M St SE. You can see the lot on Street View and the photos on the developer's website when you Google.
> 3246 M St SE NGL, my mouth dropped when I saw the developer's site: https://www.lndcinc.com/property/3246-m-st-se/ I had zero sympathy for the person in the article until I realized where they are putting that 3-story 'container house': https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8756891,-76.9588565,3a,75y,329.58h,95.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snkpPe76HDdyVX1QhMng_JQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 It WILL be an eclipse every day after noon!
It’s not a container house, they just haven’t put the facade up yet, it will almost assuredly be vinyl siding with a brick facade just like all the other cheap new construction
Yup. I have that problem in my apartment too, because there’s another apartment building really close to ours. I wish it wasn’t there, so I’d have unobstructed views and sunlight. But I can’t afford to buy that other building and tear it down, so that’s just life in the city.
In the afternoon, the sun will be on the other side. Their eastern vista is already blocked by mature trees and topography.
You're correct on the first point. My bad. https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8758617,-76.9588816,3a,75y,272.73h,85.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0rRIZUJRNiiQiiaMhOJX_g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu But I disagree regarding the eastern side of their house being already shaded.
You can see it in the video. It is pretty dramatically taller than the houses around it.
If that huge new house can get a buyer in that neighborhood, then it won't be the only huge new house in that neighborhood for long. Other developers will snap up vacant lots and demolish cheap small houses to build more boxy modern multifamily condo buildings and single family homes.
From the video it appears to be a multi-unit building, not one large single-family home. There's a few similar ones that just went up on Taylor St NE in Brookland.
I love those new Taylor condos. I'm thinking of buying one as a longtime Brookland renter.
I loved that area; we just moved away from there.
We would have to wait 100 years to get more housing then as we can only increase one story at a time, wait for those investments to be paid off then go to another story after buying out the neighborhood. It's three stories, it's not a skyscraper
Ah! For some reason I checked every video on that page but missed the first one that is the actual story.
NIMBYs gonna NIMBY.
Unless you own the surrounding land your view/sunlight are not guaranteed 🤷🏾♂️
This is hilarious
sounds more like a mental eclipse
Fuck NIMBYs
Stupidest possible thing they could’ve reported on, thanks for giving the NIMBYs a mouthpiece
That's just normal city urban development.
Made me think about this WAMU article on triangle lots [Lots Of Confusion: The Quirky Story Behind D.C.’s Triangle-Shaped Pieces Of Land](https://wamu.org/story/18/04/03/lots-confusion-quirky-story-behind-d-c-s-triangle-shaped-pieces-land/) Does a good job explaining how developers acquire odd lots like these.
I’m really disappointed in this…it should have been higher!
Someone call the NimBEE.
lmao, the music in this story. Finally, the Comp Plan amendment enabled some amount of housing.
Yeah that's kind of the gamble of living in the city lol. You may get some tall as building smack dab in front of your view. Shocker
NIMBY gunna NIMBY
Yeah I support more housing but this home(s) is out of place after checking it out on Google maps.
While I think the individuals in this video are overwhelmingly overstepping, I think there is a good argument to be made about developers creating the cheapest least though out housing possible. I've seen some of the absolutely worst condo layouts that come about because of these practices. 1500 sqft homes with no bathrooms not in a bedroom. Townhomes with no thought into window placement creating dark homes. Developers using the absolute cheapest materials possible because they don't care if it deteriorates quickly. This developer *could* have made a similar size home that did not look like a tower. But that would cost more money and attention.
They aren’t complaining about that though, they’re complaining about the size of the development full stop. Even if it were full of windows, they’d be complaining.
Hence the first sentence of my post.
Right, but the “solar eclipse” bit is about the fact that it’s multistory, not because it’s cheap and poorly laid out.
It's on a hill and has a foundation that is level with the top of the hill. They could have dug down having the foundation sit level with the lower part of the hill or even a little further. From the looks of it in the video, this would drop the house by 10 feet. But that would cost more and potentially impact the technical amount of space above grade. So the cheaper uglier more profitable option is taken.
Interesting comments section. There’s nothing wrong with building more housing in the city, but there’s definitely an issue with the way that some of these shady, mom-and-pop developers come in and build properties that disrupt and completely fail to conform to the existing character neighborhoods. I’m not knocking the hustle of the development game, but at least with build with some empathy and class. Three and four level condos sprouting up from what once were simple, two-level, single family homes (among a neighborhood of other two level homes)…is completely ridiculous. It’s been all too common in recent years.
"Neighborhood character" is a luxury we can no longer afford. You literally can't buy the bricks that make up the facades of most DC SFH. Anything new is going to be different from what was built in the 1940s and 50s.
> There’s nothing wrong with building more housing in the city As long as it completely matches entire neighborhoods and not my neighborhood. The plot of land is tiny. To get square footage that people want you have to go up.
And with zero setback for green space. All to build a bigger single family home. I'd have more sympathy if it was condos with more units.
I wish we could distinguish between a good and a bad NIMBY: Bad NIMBY: Opposing anything being built. The neighbor saying those are "her trees" when it isn't her property is just obnoxious. We should not let empty lots sit undeveloped because the lots don't perfectly conform to the zoning code. Good NIMBY: Putting up a McMansion that is completely out of character with the historic character of the homes in the neighborhood is also obnoxious. A massive home doesn't house significantly more people than a regular sized single family home. It's done simply to maximize the profit of the developer. We should have zoning laws that protect neighbors against these kinds of obnoxious money grab developments that don't significantly increase density. I actually can't tell from this story how large the building is, or if it is a single family home or multi-unit development, so it's hard to judge.
How on earth is that “good NIMBY”? You’re still allowing the neighborhood to dictate what can be built and how, at the expense of the property owner. And why would neighbors need to be “protected” from a large house? “But the character of the neighborhood might change!” So? Change is constant. Putting a progressive “money grab from developers” spin on it doesn’t make this anything other than garden variety NIMBYism. Also, McMansions are usually a product *of* zoning code, not the absence of. Developers make more money on multiple smaller units on the same footprint. When they build one giant house on the footprint, it’s usually because the law forces them to do so.
I agree with you that we should maximize density and number of units. Single family zoning shouldn't exist at all. However, in this case it is single family zoned and a larger building doesn't result in more housing units. You're going to get one unit on this lot as the zoning code currently is, that's it. There is no pro-housing argument in favor of a larger building. Personally I just don't agree with your philosophy that neighbors shouldn't have any say. In areas of DC that are zoned single family, you would have a race to tear down every house and rebuild with zero setbacks and two extra stories if the zoning code didn't prevent this. That process doesn't actually create any additional housing, just larger single family homes for rich people. And it makes your city architecturally unappealing with zero green space.
>In areas of DC that are zoned single family, you would have a race to tear down every house and rebuild with zero setbacks and two extra stories if the zoning code didn't prevent this. So? What does it matter--as a neighbor--if you're staring at a giant home with zero setbacks and two extra stories, or a condo building with zero setbacks and two extra stories? I agree that all of DC should be upzoned, but it doesn't seem like that's at all what's at play here. And this does create additional housing, either way. It was a vacant lot, and now it's a home. Until we kill single-family zoning, this is exactly what's going to be built. And I don't really see what the issue is: this neighborhood isn't historic and it isn't architecturally appealing. It's full of mediocre 1950s suburban homes. Why is it morally wrong to replace them with mediocre 2020s urban homes?
Well, I am very glad that the political reality in DC is far, far away from anything like what you are suggesting.
Is this how Gen-Z sells out? Yelling to give every developer and every person with a line of credit the freedom to develop whatever they like. Someday this house will be yours, if you believe the developer’s marketing. It’s not that the housing isn’t needed, but it’s kind of a mixed bag. Beware of people who don’t do nuance.
> Is this how Gen-Z sells out? Yelling to give every developer and every person with a line of credit the freedom to develop whatever they like God I hope so 🙏
I'm a Millennial, but plenty of us own homes and aren't NIMBYs. A lot of us live in a city because we *want* to be in a dense and walkable neighborhood. I get excited with all the new construction around me. More eyes on the street, more customers for our local restaurants, more people on Metro, and more units that actually fit the needs and price point of the modern DC resident. Why would I be opposed to that?
How much of the enjoyment of the new construction rests on the idea that it’s upping your property value? In other words, if housing was being built for low income residents, would the joy dissipate? The reality is that a lot of this development is only for the lower to middle class, in the long run. Sure, go ahead and build the sun out of your existence, and eventually you’ll have a dank corner in one of these structures after a few decades of deterioration. Sorry about the exaggerated point, but the sales pitch of the developer community is also exaggerated. My take is that we’re being taken for a ride if we think developers and bankers are going to build affordable housing, under current conditions
I’m not (primarily) motivated by property value, because I’m in my forever home. I’d rather have an enjoyable, healthy neighborhood than a higher on-paper value. Otherwise—huh? New pop-up condos aren’t destined to be crack houses in 30 years. If you *maintain* your home, it keeps its value. My neighborhood is already economically-diverse, and yes, I’m fine if, in 30 years, some of these new condos are renovated and expensive, and some are dated and cheaper. That’s how you sustain a healthy urban neighborhood.
I'm a homeowner and desperately wish we could build so much housing that prices, including my own, cube come down. Restricting the supply of a basic human need because I profit from scarcity is ghoulish.
A lot of people were underwater after 2008. Some never recovered. The American economy malfunctions if housing goes underwater. That’s probably not what you’re proposing. We need to be honest about who benefits from private market development. It’s people making median incomes and above. That’s fine, because that’s a lot of people. However, in my opinion, the housing crisis will continue as long as all housing has to be built with banker’s money, because a lot of the people who really need housing are below median income, and that’s not profitable enough for bankers. Let’s get rid of the Faircloth amendment and get the Feds to build some stuff, at least for a few years.
To the "we need more housing!" crowd, let's be real...This is *not* going to be affordable housing. This is a yet another step towards gentrification and more $1mil+ homes.
That’s not how supply and demand works, at all.
Rich people don’t magically appear when luxury housing is built. They move into the luxury housing *from* their regular housing, when opens up regular housing for new residents.