Mary Rowse is a Ward 3 resident and moderator of the Historic Washington list at Yahoogroups.
Richard Layman has his own blog called Rebuilding Place in the Urban Space.
From: HistoricWashington@yahoogroups.com
To: HistoricWashington@yahoogroups.com
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 02:52:11 +0000
Subject: Re: [HistoricWashington] Washington Post, Tregoning Oppose OP`s Proposed R4 Changes
The "affordable housing" argument is somewhat of a chimera as Washington is going through a broad repricing that is significantly pushing prices upward, as more neighborhoods become attractive at the metropolitan scale. As neighborhoods become more attractive, the highest income segments seek to live there, crowding out those of lesser means.
Housing production even in the intermediate term doesn't reduce or brake prices much, because it is still outpaced by demand being greater than supply. There is somewhat of a brake on pricing that results in "increased affordability" derived from providing smaller units, for "middle income" households, if there is a recognition that this is a much higher middle (probably between $100,000 and $250,000 annual household income) than what has traditionally been thought of as "affordable" in Washington, DC.
But it's somewhat fatuous to claim that keeping the housing stock fully the way it is will retain "affordability" as there are fewer and fewer opportunities to buy houses for less than $500,000 in most of the neighborhoods in the core and/or those neighborhoods particularly well served by transit., especially with historic housing stock. This is true for all of Northwest now, and a majority of near Northeast neighborhoods. The houses that are priced lower tend to have significant issues.
We are far from the days into the early 2000s, where someone could buy a house in the H St. neighborhood for under $100,000 or a studio in the Cairo for under $95,000.
By way of comparison, today I was in Baltimore for a walking tour as part of a conference, in the neighborhood anchored by Hollins Market, about 7 blocks from the Baltimore Hilton, but across MLK Avenue, which is a ring road on the west of Downtown. The neighborhood also has a square, Union, with a great deal of potential. While the houses on the square were quite attractive, we were told that prices tend to be in the range of $225,000 and significantly less. One can find many large enough houses (somewhat messed up inside from the standpoint of preservation) for $60,000 or less.
Now that's affordable...
The R4 debate is more complicated than either the proponents or the opponents are making it out to be. R4 houses get "broken" up into smaller units because the cost of the house as a single unit is significantly higher than most households can afford to either buy or maintain, and also results in "overhousing.". What's affordable about that?
But the breaking up into smaller units, accompanied by housing expansion, when done poorly and typically this is done poorly, significantly diminishes the place value of neighborhoods, even if making housing more affordable, accommodating more residents, and contributing to the economic and social health of neighborhoods.
I argue the solution is a combination of design review and restrictions based on property size.
Richard Layman
On Sunday, February 1, 2015 7:54 PM, "merowse@aol.com [HistoricWashington]" wrote:
Here is The Washington Post's Saturday editorial opposing the D.C. Office of Planning's proposed changes in R4 zones: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-flawed-zoning-plan-would-restrict-expansion-of-housing-in-key-dc-neighborhoods/2015/01/30/154e74f0-a736-11e4-a7c2-03d37af98440_story.html . The paper calls it "a bad zoning plan" and summarizes it as follows: "A proposal unveiled last year by the D.C. Office of Planning would limit the ability of property owners to expand rowhouses or convert them into condos. Neighborhoods in the R-4 zone, which accounts for about 35 percent of the District’s low-density residential lots, would see the maximum building height allowed as a matter of right lowered from 40 feet to 35 feet; condo conversions would generally be limited to two units."
I find it astonishing that The Post would suggest the R-4 proposal would make it harder for "affordable housing" to be built. Perhaps we need to define "affordable housing." Is new construction ever "affordable"? Is there any evidence pop-ups are providing affordable housing options in any neighborhood?
If, as The Post says "...the most egregious [pop-up] cases have been in neighborhoods that would not be covered in the down-zoning", couldn't OP broaden the proposal to include other zones that have been affected?
In her long letter to the Zoning Commission, (http://greatergreater.com/files/2015/tregoningr4.pdf), former Office of Planning director Harriet Tregoning also suggests that housing affordability will be compromised by the Office of Planning's proposal. Is there evidence that permitting developers to pop up row houses produces "affordable housing"?
While I agree with The Post that "...a design review process ... would help to ensure neighborhood compatibility", giving ANCs the power to do this, as Tregoning suggests, would be a disaster. We already have a streamlined process for doing this through the D.C. Historic Preservation Office and the Historic Preservation Review Board. Reinventing the wheel is rarely a good idea.
Neighborhood historic designation is the best answer because it helps protect truly affordable housing (older, contributing buildings) from demolition. If these buildings are demolished and new construction goes up, affordable housing disappears.
It's the same with commercial buildings. New, independent businesses are much more likely to afford the rent in older commercial buildings than in newly constructed ones. It's not often that one sees a young, independent business in a newly constructed building, unless there's been some rent negotiation. See the National Trust for Historic Preservation's study: "Older, Smaller, Better": http://www.preservationnation.org/information-center/sustainable-communities/green-lab/oldersmallerbetter/report/NTHP_PGL_OlderSmallerBetter_ExecSummary.pdf
Mary Rowse
I find it astonishing that The Post would suggest the R-4 proposal would make it harder for "affordable housing" to be built. Perhaps we need to define "affordable housing." Is new construction ever "affordable"? Is there any evidence pop-ups are providing affordable housing options in any neighborhood?
If, as The Post says "...the most egregious [pop-up] cases have been in neighborhoods that would not be covered in the down-zoning", couldn't OP broaden the proposal to include other zones that have been affected?
In her long letter to the Zoning Commission, (http://greatergreater.com/files/2015/tregoningr4.pdf), former Office of Planning director Harriet Tregoning also suggests that housing affordability will be compromised by the Office of Planning's proposal. Is there evidence that permitting developers to pop up row houses produces "affordable housing"?
While I agree with The Post that "...a design review process ... would help to ensure neighborhood compatibility", giving ANCs the power to do this, as Tregoning suggests, would be a disaster. We already have a streamlined process for doing this through the D.C. Historic Preservation Office and the Historic Preservation Review Board. Reinventing the wheel is rarely a good idea.
Neighborhood historic designation is the best answer because it helps protect truly affordable housing (older, contributing buildings) from demolition. If these buildings are demolished and new construction goes up, affordable housing disappears.
It's the same with commercial buildings. New, independent businesses are much more likely to afford the rent in older commercial buildings than in newly constructed ones. It's not often that one sees a young, independent business in a newly constructed building, unless there's been some rent negotiation. See the National Trust for Historic Preservation's study: "Older, Smaller, Better": http://www.preservationnation.org/information-center/sustainable-communities/green-lab/oldersmallerbetter/report/NTHP_PGL_OlderSmallerBetter_ExecSummary.pdf
Mary Rowse
No comments:
Post a Comment