City Lab post on the DC Office of Planning's pop-up proposal: "Income inequality lurks beneath DC's 'pop-up' housing debate''

See this tweet follow-up to this City Lab article:

Drew Nilsen ‏@DrewNilsen  4m

Whether #DC pop-ups are "ugly" or not isn't the issue. The city needs more housing supply. #bloomingdaledc http://bit.ly/TDzjBC 

3:51 PM - 2 Jul 2014

Comments, Bloomingdale residents?

A sample of a beautiful Bloomingdale pop-up.

Click on the link to read the * entire * CityLab post.

Which you want to do.

Income Inequality Lurks Beneath D.C.'s 'Pop-Up' Housing Debate

Rowhouse additions offend the sensibilities of some homeowners. But when cities protect their interests, they do so at the expense of residents.

• KRISTON CAPPS
 
• @kristoncapps
 
• 12:14 PM ET
• •  
  • • A new proposal from the D.C. Office of Planning aims to do something about the housing problem in Washington, D.C. Not the lack-of housing problem, but the tacky housing problem. The proposed zoning update takes aim at a range of alleged offenders, tiny houses and relaxed parking minimums among them. But chief among the changes is a provision that would place additional limits on one of the most controversial housing expansion trends in this city of late: so-called "pop-ups," or vertical additions to the traditionally narrow D.C. rowhouse.  
    • ...
      Worse still, the proposal designates a zone—R4, which includes some of the fastest-growing and -gentrifying neighborhoods in the city—where pop-up rowhouse condo conversions would more or less be banned.
      ...
      So amid some rather negative planning developments in the District this week, it was refreshing to hear two planners debate D.C.'s pop-ups not as they're usually discussed—as a matter of taste, of aesthetics—but in terms of protecting incumbent homeowner interests vs. ensuring the housing capacity of the city. I'm fortunate that Alpert was able to share testimony from the Zoning Commission meeting, where Zoning Commission chair Anthony Hood cut to the heart of the matter:                                                          
      
      While I understand the need, there are a lot of folks in this city who bought in their areas for a reason. ... Do we just throw everybody on top of them or do we kind of balance that out? ... While there is a need for housing, we have to be delicate with that because [anyone] in this city who's been there a long time, they spent a lot of money in purchasing their homes which is their biggest investment, and they didn't buy into that.
      ...  
       
      The city needs to stop talking about whether pop-up condo conversions are "ugly"—full stop. That argument is a veiled sort of NIMBYism, whereby a debate over aesthetics implies mutual interest. But really, only one side wins when the rules are made to stop development to protect a homeowner's lovely view.