An Example of Why Route 1 Will Never Really Improve (Arlington: how much, townhouse)

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by Carlingtonian

TE, that all makes sense in theory--but if additional supply lowers prices, then why is Manhattan so expensive? After all, there's no height limit there, and there have been many new buildings in the last 10 years.

Same with Clarendon: Until 1995 or so, it looked like Route 1 does now--and was where people went for affordable apartments. Then, 8-story luxury condos arrived. Now--despite the additional supply--rents are probably 3 or 4 times what they were than in 1995.

Manhattan is a massive employment center and has grown as such over the last few decades.

Clarendon is has become more costly because there is more employment - not just in Arlington, but in DC to which many people in Arlington commute. And it has become more fashionable.

Really where do you think those folks who live in the condos would live, if the condos there hadnt been built? A. Either they would live elsewhere - older units, or farther out - which would have resulted in those units being more expensive and pricing people out B. The jobs they take would have gone begging - I dont know that would have happened, any more than service industry jobs going begging because of the affordability issues for the poor.

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by Carlingtonian

OK. And my point is that Boomshakalaka is representing folks who live there now and who (from what he/she is saying) make way less than 40K a year and are mostly service industry people who make minimum wage or close to it. They have to live somewhere.

What I have no doubt about whatsoever is that new housing there will not be built with them in mind; the new housing won't be two-story, basic-amenity garden apartments like the existing ones. It'll be "luxury" (or at least claim to be) apartments/condos. And the people who live in that area now will be priced out--eventually.

Its rare that new housing in any major metro is going to be affordable to the poor. Other than mobile homes, its too costly too build new. Affordable housing, if its not going to be subsidized (or mandated by govt to developers of new market rate housing) is going to be OLDER housing that filters down. We don't have enough of that in this region, cause the region has grown quickly. We especially don't have enough of it in the closer in areas near metros (well excluding PG and EOTR DC, anyway) because relatively little was built in those areas prior to 1995 or so, compared to the demand. Folks like myself and my wife are going to be looking at older hirises in places like Columbia Pike, Cherrydale, Park Center, etc BECAUSE the new stuff is so pricey. If the new stuff were a tad less pricey, it would be affordable to us, and we (and folks in our situation) would not be driving up the prices of the 1970s and 1980s buildings, which would become more affordable for those with tighter budgets. To make the new stuff less pricey, we need to remove (within reason and equity) the obstacles to building enough new stuff to meet the demand.

[tysonsengineer]

Originally Posted by brooklynborndad

Its rare that new housing in any major metro is going to be affordable to the poor. Other than mobile homes, its too costly too build new. Affordable housing, if its not going to be subsidized (or mandated by govt to developers of new market rate housing) is going to be OLDER housing that filters down. We don't have enough of that in this region, cause the region has grown quickly. We especially don't have enough of it in the closer in areas near metros (well excluding PG and EOTR DC, anyway) because relatively little was built in those areas prior to 1995 or so, compared to the demand. Folks like myself and my wife are going to be looking at older hirises in places like Columbia Pike, Cherrydale, Park Center, etc BECAUSE the new stuff is so pricey. If the new stuff were a tad less pricey, it would be affordable to us, and we (and folks in our situation) would not be driving up the prices of the 1970s and 1980s buildings, which would become more affordable for those with tighter budgets. To make the new stuff less pricey, we need to remove (within reason and equity) the obstacles to building enough new stuff to meet the demand.

You clearly have a better way with words than me. Thank you.

[tysonsengineer]

The whole discussion inspired me to put together some statistics and graphics on the concept of higher density in urban cores to create affordability in suburbs

Palo Alto Effect and Nova

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by Carlingtonian

What I have no doubt about whatsoever is that new housing there will not be built with them in mind; the new housing won't be two-story, basic-amenity garden apartments like the existing ones. It'll be "luxury" (or at least claim to be) apartments/condos. And the people who live in that area now will be priced out--eventually.

BTW, do you think that brand new two story basic amenity garden apts would be affordable to folks with household incomes well under 40K? While I have not been in the market for that, my impression is that newly renovated two story garden apts in close in NoVa generally command market rates above that.

Perhaps if we built lots and lots and lots of such units, we could drive down the price somewhat. But given the limits on available land, we can't build that many such additional units.

[FindingZen]

Originally Posted by brooklynborndad

BTW, do you think that brand new two story basic amenity garden apts would be affordable to folks with household incomes well under 40K? While I have not been in the market for that, my impression is that newly renovated two story garden apts in close in NoVa generally command market rates above that.

Perhaps if we built lots and lots and lots of such units, we could drive down the price somewhat. But given the limits on available land, we can't build that many such additional units.

Having lived in one of said basic amenity apartments along Route 1, I'd say that it would already be very difficult for a solo renter to get below that salary, let alone a family. Renovated unitss wouldn't make it any easier.

[Carlingtonian]

Originally Posted by brooklynborndad

BTW, do you think that brand new two story basic amenity garden apts would be affordable to folks with household incomes well under 40K? While I have not been in the market for that, my impression is that newly renovated two story garden apts in close in NoVa generally command market rates above that.

Perhaps if we built lots and lots and lots of such units, we could drive down the price somewhat. But given the limits on available land, we can't build that many such additional units.

I don't know. The answer would be based on speculative math--which I can be up for--and research into what the average rent is in newish garden apartments in places simliar to Route 1, which I'm too lazy to do. (Plus I have no idea where to find that info.)

Seems to me there is definitely a lot of vacant land along Route 1 between Old Town and Belvoir. (Not large swaths of it, but vacant lots and derelict buildings here and there.) The question is whether building budget apartments is still lucrative enough for a builder to bother. They might instead roll the dice and build taller, more high-end apartments in the hopes that someone making 50-60K will be willing to rent there and drive 5 or 10 miles down Route 1 to Belvoir or the other direction, to a job in Old Town or PTO, etc. And to be honest, that's probably a solid bet over the long term; from what I read on this forum, it sounds like Burke and Springfield are close to capacity, and OT and Mt. Vernon are both expensive. And for singles or anyone wanting a 1BR or 2BR apartment/condo, the options I believe are even narrower.

[brooklynborndad]

heres what the market is providing in terms of new "nonurbanist" low rise housing not too far away

Bainbridge River Oaks

its four stories, not two.

its got a full amenity package - pool, fitness center, coffee bar

I can't find the rents on their web site, but I doubt its going to be affordable for minimum wage workers.

I am doubtful that stripping the amenity package would reduce costs that much, and I am pretty certain that 4 stories instead of 2 makes things cheaper. And I doubt that the economics for providing market rate low income units will work better in FFX than in Woodbridge.

a little searching suggests 1brs in newly renovated garden apt complexes run about $1300 a month or so - but those may be in more desirable locations, and I dont think they are quite "bare bones"

This issue has come up wrt to the Beauregard Small Area Plan in City of Alex - the City's proposal would upzone affordable garden apts (in generally poor condition IIUC) into mid to hirise mixed use (with some units reserved for affordable) folks are complaining about the net loss of affordable unit, and IIRC the citys response is that if they dont do this, the developers will renovate the complexes, and they will cease to be affordable to current residents.

The complaint then is why can't Alex get as many affordable units in the new developments as Arlington gets? To which the city responds that Arlington can get that, because they offer the developers higher density than is envisioned in the Beauregard plan.

I'm afraid the math is not kind.

[tysonsengineer]

The more units you create, the less the cost of the land impacts the development. This is just a fact. So it would be counter intuitive for affordability to artificially force lower density.

The reason why the high rises are expensive is because the market for family oriented condos has not been filled yet. It does not mean that high rises can't be built with a lower cost unit in mind, nor does it mean that a building that sells 600k 3br units cant also have studio and 1br units for 200,000 dollars. Also it doesn't preclude two buildings being made, 1 for condos, the other for rental. The condo being high enough density to gain back all money on construction, and the rental being allowed to be MORE dense as to create a better incentive for the developer to undercut other developments with better rates (assisted in part by the incentive of the county of allowing taller construction).

[CAVA1990]

Originally Posted by brooklynborndad

I can't find the rents on their web site, but I doubt its going to be affordable for minimum wage workers.

I doubt many of those living on route 1 now are doing so on just minimum wage.