"More homebuyers want walkable, transit-served communities" (Arlington, Annandale: 2014, renters)

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by claremarie

. "Smart" growth planners have been trying to get people to live in congested urban/inner suburban communities for a long time, but a substantial number of family buyers still want a SFH with a garage for the cars and a yard for the kids, and they don't want to live near busy streets and noisy commercial areas.

the piece l linked to confirms that smart growth areas may only appeal to a minority. The point is that that minority is a larger part of the population, than smart growth housing is of the housing stock, in most areas. I think thats reflected in housing prices in greater washington recently (I do not know if the many multifamily projects near transit currently in the pipeline will change that)

[Caladium]

Originally Posted by CAVA1990

Unfortunately what homebuyers want is often quite different from what they will pay for and what developers can make the most money on. Seems since the 80s developers around here have determined they can only make money on giant brick McMansions for affluent buyers and cheap townhouses for the less affluent or those living closer in. Apparently there's no profit here in 1,500-2,000 sq. ft SFHs.

Maybe no profit for them, but if you own one, you probably won't have trouble selling it. There's still a demand for those homes, and if they're rare it keeps your neighborhood in demand. We discovered that was a happy result of LC deciding all future developments will use the grid system. Homes in my cul de sac neighborhood instantly became more sought after. The cul de sac is now a big selling feature.

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by Caladium

We discovered that was a happy result of LC deciding all future developments will use the grid system. .

I havent heard that they did that, thats very interesting. Do you have a link?

[Caladium]

Originally Posted by Carlingtonian

Anyone who opposes increased density in their neighborhood is dismissed as a NIMBY. Don't want a condo tower looming over your backyard? Go away, NIMBY! (Interestingly, they were all for NIMBYism when it came to Arlington's opposition to the HOT lanes on 395. And when the widening of I-66 was being discussed.)

LOL LOL this is so true! The one good side effect to the steady diet of hypocrisy you sometimes see in urban planning is that I've become absolutely immune to the word NIMBY.

[Caladium]

Originally Posted by brooklynborndad

I havent heard that they did that, thats very interesting. Do you have a link?

Use the forum search engine. We had at least one humongo thread on it about 2 years ago, and probably a few others, too.

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by Caladium

LOL LOL this is so true! The one good side effect to the steady diet of hypocrisy you sometimes see in urban planning is that I've become absolutely immune to the word NIMBY.

actually professional urban planners are all into stakeholder buyin and stuff like that. NIMBY is a word used by advocates in political debates - and it plays on many sides, debating on what is involved (an oil pipeline - or a wind farm - a hirise near a metro station, or a major highway) Sometimes its justified, and sometimes it isnt.


In general we need to balance the needs of folks living near a project, with the larger needs of society. I think how that plays out in a given instance, is complex.

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by Caladium

Use the forum search engine. We had at least one humongo thread on it about 2 years ago, and probably a few others, too.

search

threads

loudoun county street grid

result

A thread beginning with a LONG rant by steel city rising.

Is that the one?

[Caladium]

Originally Posted by brooklynborndad

search

threads

loudoun county street grid

result

A thread beginning with a LONG rant by steel city rising.

Is that the one?

LOL I don't recall off hand but the odds are pretty good that it is. If that doesn't work, try searching for cul de sac.

[brooklynborndad]

oh that

"The state has decided that all new subdivisions must have through streets linking them with neighboring subdivisions, schools and shopping areas. State officials say the new regulations will improve safety and accessibility and save money: No more single entrances and exits onto clogged secondary roads. Quicker responses by emergency vehicles. Lower road maintenance costs for governments"

well for one, thats the commonwealth, not the county

second, and more importantly, its not a mandate for genuinely "griddy" developments like Kentlands - its seems to just require at least some connectivity to the neighboring subdivisions. The whole development cant be one long cul de sac, but you can still have windy roads and cul de sacs and so forth WITHIN a subdivision if you have at least a few (WaPo didnt say how many if I read it right) connections, not just a single feed to the arterial.

And if the subdivision is willing to pay for its own road maintenance, then they can still be one long cul de sac.

I thought you meant that all new developments in LC would be rectilinear grids. Which would be rad, and flabbergasting that LC would go for that. Instead its just a "dont feed all traffic into the arterial" thing - which I support, but its not that radical a change.

[hilsmom]

all I know is that the single family homes I have seen in lorton station and south riding area where you are inches away from your neighbors are not at ALL what I want. If THAT is what "smart growth" advocates are pushing for, no thanks.

And I say this as a major supporter of public transportation. I bussed and metroed for years quite happily.

My job is in the burbs and so is my husband's. We're perfectly content with the 2200sf house with a cute fenced yard just steps from all 3 school levels and most of the amenities we need within a mile of us in a community built in the 60s. If I were working downtown, we would have been looking for whatever we could afford with reasonable public transportation options closer into the city.

Thanks for this though - this study might be what I post to our market research blog tomorrow