Submitted by Maxcactus t3_znccng in washingtondc
Comments
DinosaurKevin t1_j0j03h2 wrote
Luxury at this point just means granite/quartz countertops, in-unit washer/dryer, and halfway to moderately decent community amenities. Doesn’t mean the quality of any of those things is assured though. I now just appreciate apartment buildings that refer to themselves as modern instead of luxury, which is a much more accurate assessment.
Adept-Pension-1312 t1_j0hc24e wrote
Hasn't there been ongoing residential development in DC at the same time as housing prices have gone up?
9throwawayDERP t1_j0hsuyl wrote
Dc is the only major city in the US to have had median rents rise less than inflation over the last decade. The data is pretty clear about this.
oxtailplanning t1_j0iitlh wrote
Plus if we build 20 new units, and 25 people want to move in, prices will go up still (but if we built 0 units, it would be worse.)
Supply deniers are just bizarre.
9throwawayDERP t1_j0ixkir wrote
But they seem to be everywhere. Like you give them an example with iPhones or cars and they come to the right conclusion, but housing breaks their mind.
oxtailplanning t1_j0iz83o wrote
The car example is especially apt. They get the concept of filtering there (Rich people buy new car, and sell their old. The fancy car from 2011 is the cheap used car of today), but you mention the same concept for housing and you're accused of "trickle down economics".
KaiserReisser t1_j0hhcde wrote
Housing prices have gone up everywhere but they've gone up less in DC than other east coast cities.
RoosterInMyRrari t1_j0hf7es wrote
Not nearly enough to keep up with demand. Our density is piss poor (thanks building height restrictions!).
Here4thebeer3232 t1_j0ib7k0 wrote
Most European cities don't have high rises either. DC can achieve density without the need for them. The bigger issue is the massive sections of detached single family homes outside the core.
RoosterInMyRrari t1_j0igpe8 wrote
Yes that is also an issue. Paris, which has few high rises, is MUCH more dense than DC.
oxtailplanning t1_j0iixug wrote
Also the thing that limits height is rarely the height act itself but NIMBYs that fight everything.
lc1138 t1_j0jkyac wrote
You tryna storm the palisades
Vegetable-Ratio-5857 t1_j0k525m wrote
Does it occur to you that prices would have gone up even more without additional supply?
dataminimizer t1_j0gf290 wrote
More housing is good.
wreckfish111 t1_j0g35g8 wrote
1111 20th St. NW
foxy-coxy t1_j0hkcml wrote
Thank you. I couldn't figure out where this place is.
Appropriate-Ad-4148 t1_j0gj9am wrote
Cue the irrational, hypocritical, and environmentally ignorant dislike of high-rise or dense living for reasons like "it is branded as luxury to be more marketable," "there isn't enough parking," "who would want to live in that shoebox," or " having in-unit laundry and a fitness center is bougie."
ames2k20 t1_j0h2kud wrote
More of this!!!
wecanbothlive t1_j0hb61d wrote
I couldn't find an image in the article of the proposed design, but this appears to be the website for it:
owlplate t1_j0sfz8e wrote
Right? Like I'm here for photos of the building, not Bowser.
NPRjunkieDC t1_j0gqh5f wrote
Affordable at 60% of some income level they use is I think for people making 50-80K, so many on here might qualify for all the affordable units in new projects
Quelcris_Falconer13 t1_j0jy2pa wrote
Affordability is usually used based off median income in the area. It’s higher in DC than the national average but DC is. HCOL city, one do the top 5 in the US, so yeah median income here might be too dollar in many parts of the US, but in DC it feels poor.
NPRjunkieDC t1_j0melmg wrote
What many don't realize I think is that one bedrooms in 20009 (in beautiful old buildings cuz very little new construction) have not gone up in price last 10 years . 325-450K.
Quelcris_Falconer13 t1_j0n0u9k wrote
Almost half a million dollars for a 1br condo still feels like a rip when you think about how you gotta pay high HOA fees anyways
NPRjunkieDC t1_j0n2r2t wrote
400K + $300 per month +300 monthly property taxes comes out same or less than rent if you have DP. With rates at 3% maybe not 6.5%.
DC helps with DP if you make 50-80K .
Quelcris_Falconer13 t1_j0nf8w6 wrote
Yeah I’m in the shitty income where you make too much for aid but have to live well below your means if you want to afford to buy.
NPRjunkieDC t1_j0n3mob wrote
Or come to Atlanta.
SF + LA + Denver + Seattle + Chicago + Boston + NYC + DC + Miami + Atlanta. 10 major cities not incl TX.
Atlanta only cheap real estate out of the 10 cities.
Bought condo good location Atlanta .210K 780sf one bedroom + one bath. Put in 70K and new location for kitchen and bath + added half bath + new location washer dryer + new floors + new molding everywhere + knocked down 2 walls . Ended up 2BR + 1FB + 1HB with 70K so total 280K.
Quelcris_Falconer13 t1_j0nf4i1 wrote
Nice! But not a fan of Atlanta in general.
kstinfo t1_j0k4vhe wrote
WJLA wants to keep it a secret but the address is 1111 20th Street NW, Washington, DC 20036.
News ! ! ! Building that can't get commercial tenants will be given incentives to rent to residential tenants.
lewisfairchild t1_j0get3g wrote
Willco
bassmaster_gen t1_j0hhsgm wrote
No photos of the exterior (eyeroll)
VesselPestle t1_j0j93az wrote
I worked in the Vanguard Building in the early 1990s. It’s hard to conceive of that functional, dingy space being transformed into a luxury apartment building.
jindc t1_j0h0uz3 wrote
I cannot comprehend DC's preference for apartments rather than condos. Ownership over eternal rent seems like a no brainer.
Cool_Story_Bra t1_j0h2x4a wrote
For the same reason I would rather own than rent, a developer would rather me rent than own. And guess which one has the capital to do a massive new construction or renovation project in DC?
jindc t1_j0hdas3 wrote
That is where tax coding and zoning play a part.
And the people responsible for zoning and tax code are bought and paid for.
Cool_Story_Bra t1_j0hfeth wrote
Zoning doesn’t really differentiate between condos and rentals for the purposes large projects like this, both are about equally feasible.
Would be interested in how you think the tax code should be changed on this matter. I see a few options and none of them are very appealing.
Raise tax on rental property owners? Because that just gets passed on down to renters. Lower taxes on personal home owners? Congrats you just cut city revenue by giving a tax break to the wealthiest segments of the population.
jindc t1_j0hjdfa wrote
Zoning could, no? In as much as an area can be zoned for single family homes, a multi family units, zoning could slice and dice the type of units. So the zoning argument is arbitrary.
A resident of a condo can not deduct the condo fee from their taxes. A landlord can. Reverse it, and favor ownership over rental.
DC used to charge a substantial fee to convert a rental apartment building into condos. Eliminate it.
DC does not provide a homestead exemption for resident condominium parking places. Provide it.
Provide tax preferred savings plan to save for a down payment.
Go to back to a first time home buyer tax credit.
Do you need more? Or are you fixated on raising taxed on rental property (which removing the deduction on condo fees would do)?
Cool_Story_Bra t1_j0hkcge wrote
Those could all make condos more affordable, sure. I fail to see how any of that would encourage anyone to build more condos. That’s the factor that’s missing here. Those efforts don’t do anyone any good if there aren’t more condos to buy.
And I guess you could making zoning specific to condos vs apartments, but I don’t think adding more restrictions to zoning is a way to spur continued development of new housing, which is the key to lowering prices for all types.
jindc t1_j0hmid1 wrote
That is a demand function, is it not?
If condos are more affordable to residents, then people will want them.
For that matter, if DC implemented any or all of those mechanisms for commercial properties on K Street - including expanding zoning for multi-family, but restricting it to condo or coop residential property, don't think developers would fill the space and make a profit?
Without a grand economic study, I think it would be enough.
Cool_Story_Bra t1_j0ho3um wrote
It’s not really a demand function, as there is already massive demand in DC for everything. Given a scarcity of housing, where you can fill up anything you build, it’s driven by margins for profit optimization. Profit for developers here means maximizing the price of condos or rents. Making condos more affordable via tax incentives and whatnot doesn’t actually change anything for the developers unless it means they can raise prices to increase profit. So now you’re cutting tax revenue to boost developer profits by roughly the same amount, and cost of condo units has gone up.
And you certainly could require condo or coops to be built, but I’m not convinced that’s what people want. There might be data saying it is, but Im not seeing it. Certainly not enough for the city zoning boards to pick and choose where they implement those requirements.
Best solution is to build build build as much as possible. Supply goes up and meets demand, prices come down (or at least level off) and condo vs apartment economics can reach a more natural equilibrium.
jindc t1_j0hjk0a wrote
I just recall that when I bought in 97 DC gave me a 5 year abatement on real estate taxes. Another mechanism to help with home ownership.
sprinkles202 t1_j0huflk wrote
DC is transient, and there’s a large population of younger folks who want to live in DC for a few years but don’t want/intend to buy until they move out of the area or decamp to the suburbs.
I see this particular building being popular with GW grad students and junior biglaw types who want the convenience in the near term but wouldn’t want to live there in the long term and thus would rather rent than buy. Or maybe it’ll become another Avenue and be full of GW undergrads.
jindc t1_j0hy743 wrote
That is true. But I know quite a few people would would like to buy in DC but are priced out. So....
Not sure how GWU manages its housing. But GU has been building steadily to house its undergrads, and some law students, at least. Not sure how many full time GU students are now in the transient rental market.
[deleted] t1_j0ilcq3 wrote
[deleted]
9throwawayDERP t1_j0ht822 wrote
I would be weary to buy a condo in DC. DC allows for development so condos are just a depreciating assets, since there will always be ‘more’. And there are still tons of lots available for development.
If the city was fully built out and there were so surface parking lots period, I’d consider it.
The condos in my neighborhood simply sell for their original price. The rowhomes have all appreciated, since you can covert them to condos.
jindc t1_j0hxtn8 wrote
Volatility is real. I purchased mine in '97 for less than it sold originally in '75.
JerriBlankStare t1_j0j6kt7 wrote
>I would be weary
FWIW, the word you're looking for here is wary (feeling or showing caution about possible dangers or problems.)
Weary means tired. 😏
brekky_sandy t1_j0itpms wrote
Why does housing have to be an investment, though? Wouldn't it be better for everyone if we could buy and sell properties for (more or less) what they're actually worth?
9throwawayDERP t1_j0ixefv wrote
Oh agreed. Structures shouldn’t appreciate. But I don’t want to burden everyone with all the vagaries of home ownership.
brekky_sandy t1_j0j1oc6 wrote
Well, I'm here for it if you ever want to get into it!
veloharris t1_j0j3owm wrote
Plenty of condos in DC appreciate, as with all real estate, it depends where it is located.
DistrictBaguette t1_j0g8qnv wrote
Luxury apartments?
Mez1991 t1_j0gdfmu wrote
15 percent of the 163 units will be affordable. That’s 24 more affordable housing units downtown than the zero there would have been without this project.
swampoodler t1_j0ge3l6 wrote
This is a good way of looking at it.
If we continue to push for remote work and refitting old office spaces into apartments, the overall benefit for everyone is much higher than it would have been otherwise.
DistrictBaguette t1_j0gh2qo wrote
Glad there’s some affordable unit, however, the addition of more luxury apartments will artificially push up the average rate of rentals and will raise continue to make all units in the city less affordable.
__main__py t1_j0glt52 wrote
Do you have a source for this? Because everything I have read states literally the opposite, that increasing housing supply reduces cost increases on existing housing.
johnbrownbody t1_j0gjkop wrote
> the addition of more luxury apartments will artificially push up the average rate of rentals and will raise continue to make all units in the city less affordable.
Having more units available will mean lower market prices all else equal..
I cannot parse the second half of your sentence, but if you are arguing that having more units will make units less affordable, I (and the relevant literature) disagree that building more units makes units more expensive.
There are 24 more affordable housing units in the city if this conversion occurs, sounds like it'll make a big difference for some people directly and there is strong evidence that adding more units has spillover effects on rents in other buildings. Supply and demand!
[deleted] t1_j0gpy9z wrote
[deleted]
SheilaBoof t1_j0gvo1n wrote
Lapses in your logic aside, would you rather them build apartments that no one wants? It's a new building, but everything is mediocre at best and all fixtures will need to be replaced within 5 years? Maybe apartments that they can make a return on with section 8 housing?
AlanWahn t1_j0h0bns wrote
> the addition of more luxury apartments will artificially push up the average rate of rentals
literally the opposite of this actually, increasing the housing supply decreases price pressure (however minutely). how would that even work? a new luxury apartment gets built and a rich person says "you know what? I want two expensive apartments that are both in Washington DC"?
hannibalbaracka t1_j0h8rgp wrote
Does introducing new cars make old cars more or less expensive than they were previously?
Supply and demand skepticism literally only exists for housing, and its idiotic
EverybodyBeCalm t1_j0gf6il wrote
Every new building until the end of time will be called “luxury”.
Gitopia t1_j0gs9xo wrote
Not inaccurate. Living in a recently built structure has always been a luxury.
Less_Wrong_ t1_j0gyaq1 wrote
That’s what happens when cities and nimbys block housing of all kinds. Only the high margin stuff (luxury/higher end) stuff gets built. As more “luxury” housing gets built (which helps prevent high earning people from moving into low income housing for low income people), builders move to provide lower margin housing
oxtailplanning t1_j0ij7fq wrote
Luxury literally just means new.
AngelsGoHome t1_j0gs2e8 wrote
Near as I can tell any apartment with an in-unit washer/dryer is “luxury”.
[deleted] t1_j0gjuoo wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0ga54p wrote
[deleted]
GenericReditAccount t1_j0gb3go wrote
In theory, more inventory = less demand = lower prices. In theory.
pgm123 t1_j0gk6i6 wrote
As you could see during COVID when there was a lot less demand, so buildings offered deep discounts.
firewarner t1_j0gh175 wrote
Housing is a supply and demand problem
SheilaBoof t1_j0gvqat wrote
Will you take a lower salary for lower rents?
celj1234 t1_j0gexb5 wrote
That ain’t happening
[deleted] t1_j0grum4 wrote
[removed]
RoosterInMyRrari t1_j0gskap wrote
Even if they are “luxury” apartments (whatever that means) study after study shows that if you increase the supply of housing (“luxury” or not) housing prices lower.
Building more housing (of any kind) is better than building no housing.