Recently, an account called Arlington Transparency tweeted a memo about the problems with missing middle housing. Below I will dispute why I disagree with their analysis.
There is a lot I could say about this and a lot that is really better covered in the other "stats". However, one thing I will start by saying is people often use the term housing for "families". But the reality is that Arlington really has more appeal and is better set up for singles and those without families. And it isn't because of the lack of larger units either. I could go into more details but this could be a whole other post. And I say this as someone who tried to raise a family there and left.
Not Diverse:
Arlington already is not diverse. Guess what? The building I lived in, in Arlington was probably at least over 95 percent white and Asian. Actually, the 95 percent is probably a low estimate and goes higher when you factor in owners.
The whole time I owned a unit there the board was 100 percent white and Asian. When I left it was completely white. Making housing more affordable by increasing supply would probably change this. But let's be honest: NIMBY's have no desire to change this-they at most want lip service to diversity-and certainly not in their neighborhood.
Excludes all but the wealthiest few:
Okay this one I can't even make sense of. If it only included the wealthiest few the plan would be to build giant mansions on giant plots of land. That isn't really either plan, but sounds closer to the NIMBY protect our single family houses plan.
2/3rds of redeveloped complexes 6 to 8 Unit Complexes:
So what? Not much more to say.
89 percent of the unites studio-2 bedrooms:
Almost all the talk is about families, but the reality is most people spend the majority of their lives without children. Some never have children. If you have two kids 3 years apart say at age 33, then you have from 21-33 childless and then from 54 to the rest of your life childless. Thus, there are a lot of people who can live comfortably in a studio to 2 bedroom-both singles and couples. Also, Arlington tends to have offering that are heavy on that people without kids side. Thus this housing is more useful to those who fit the Arlington demographic. And people with kids do live in two and even one bedroom units.
A second point is that smaller units allow more people to be housed densely. That means less people who have to drive in-either because they are living further away or living with parents.
-9 percent loss of "needed" 3 bedroom units:
But are they really needed? I lived in Ballston for a bit where few children lived even in the houses or apartments that had 3 bedrooms. Also, if there was a need for 3 bedroom units that was higher than the need for smaller units, wouldn't the builders, built these instead.
$151,000 minimum income for cheapest 2 bedroom units:
Firstly, if supply is higher than prices generally follow. Even if it goes up because Arlington is popular it will make nearby counties more affordable.
But there is a much larger point. Income is really only one factor and one way people buy properties. There are many ways people come across money for properties-gifts from family, money from less expensive previous properties, divorce settlements, inheritance, lawsuits, intense savings on a somewhat lesser income, going in with others and really the list goes on and on.
And the reality is that I already know so many people who have already been pushed out of Arlington because we haven't been building enough housing to keep prices affordable.
Slashes new "tree" canopy 49 percent:
While it may decrease trees in Arlington, not building up with definitely cost the earth a lot more trees-particularly in places like the exurbs where those who can't afford anywhere else are being pushed out to. Better to destroy less trees overall. And the trees in untouched areas generally have more animals living in them, than in the city.
However, my experience is that many of the areas Arlington is building up on have few trees anyway. For example, the heavily contested church property in Ballston near the metro has set empty for years plus parking near it and only a few trees.
5x more cars:
According to the studies I have read density reduces pollution and cars, so I'm not finding this likely. See Boston University Study cited in this article:How much does density really cut down on driving? | Grist. Being able to live closer to where they work due to increased supply would likely decrease the number of car trips into Arlington. And there are many other reasons why more supply drives down the number of cars.
The one part that I do find problematic is that to the best of my knowledge Arlington still as minimum parking requirements which is a huge mistake.
There is one other part that states-2413 days to create plan and 29 days to comment. I don't know about this, but I probably won't debate this one as I don't feel like the Arlington county board or other government is particularly citizen focused or truly wants to hear from people in the county.
About the author: Rachelle Kaufman is a YIMBY and former resident of Arlington. She is also a mother, gardener, and author of a number of books. For more info on her books please visit Amazon.com: Rachelle Kaufman: Books, Biography, Blog, Audiobooks, Kindle
