Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Very American concept that the poorest of the poor are entitled to live in closest proximity to the best that the nation has to offer.
I once lived in Brazil for awhile. If you were a poor uneducated Brazilian with very little money, and you wanted to work downtown to clean offices or whatever, you had to commute into the city to do so. The downtown areas were mostly filled with working office people who lived and worked there. It makes sense, you live near where you work.
Whereas in the States, the 9-5 working people commute from long distances, and the poorest of the poor get to live closest to all the jobs and offices.
The American concept has never made sense to me.
It makes no sense from a middle class perspective, from a working person's perspective, from a family person's perspective who doesn't want to commute long distances, from a realistic pespective, from a logical perspective.
It only really makes sense on an academic 'oh, these poor helpless people' level.
Last edited by Tiger Beer; 04-21-2011 at 09:55 PM..
Very American concept that the poorest of the poor are entitled to live in closest proximity to the best that the nation has to offer.
I once lived in Brazil for awhile. If you were a poor uneducated Brazilian with very little money, and you wanted to work downtown to clean offices or whatever, you had to commute into the city to do so. The downtown areas were mostly filled with working office people who lived and worked there. It makes sense, you live near where you work.
Whereas in the States, the 9-5 working people commute from long distances, and the poorest of the poor get to live closest to all the jobs and offices.
The American concept has never made sense to me.
It makes no sense from a middle class perspective, from a working person's perspective, from a family person's perspective who doesn't want to commute long distances, from a realistic pespective, from a logical perspective.
It only really makes sense on an academic 'oh, these poor helpless people' level.
actually it makes perfect sense to me.
poor people live where they have to. rich people live where they want to. that's the power of choice.
if american inner cities offered suburban luxuries, more middle and upper income families would live in cities. but as it stands, the suburbs offer better schools, better quality of life, and more room for families who CAN afford to live and commute from the burbs.
you really can't compare other countries to america in that regard.
how many countries put more money into their national highway systems than they do in mass transit projects?
the federal highway infrastructure in america is the reason this choice exists.
Whereas in the States, the 9-5 working people commute from long distances, and the poorest of the poor get to live closest to all the jobs and offices.
This is a really bizarre way of looking at the situation.
It's not that the poor "get" to live closest to the central city, it's that many inner city neighborhoods became, particularly during the latter half of the 20th century, the most neglected and under-invested areas in a city, and most who had the financial means to do so fled them for posher, safer neighborhoods in the suburbs.
This certainly wasn't always the case. The Victorian mansions that line the streets of neighborhoods like Logan Circle, Shaw and Ledroit Park weren't built to house the impoverished citizens of DC; they were built for, and lived-in by, the wealthy and upper-crust. That such neighborhoods were ever allowed to collapse into the neglected state that many of them were in throughout the 70s-90s is an indication of how much city leaders failed to address the problems facing the District, or to ameliorate the problems of extreme poverty.
In fairness the District leaders could do nothing about the white flight of the 60s as they really can do very little to stop the "gentrification" that is occurring now. The renovation of the housing stock is a good thing for the city, expanding the tax and economic base. The issue of dislocation can be ameliorated by forcing developers to include low income housing in their projects.
The issue of dislocation can be ameliorated by forcing developers to include low income housing in their projects.
Pretty much all jurisdictions around the DC area have some laws or regulations to encourage this. The problem is that the laws allow a great deal of flexibility--developers in Montgomery County, for instance, can "buy" their way out of including affordable housing units in their projects. In DC, affordable units are frequently added as a bargaining chip by developers seeking to obtain zoning relief or other exemptions from the government, but they are insufficient to make up for affordable units that are being lost by the city. And so on.
Pretty much all jurisdictions around the DC area have some laws or regulations to encourage this. The problem is that the laws allow a great deal of flexibility--developers in Montgomery County, for instance, can "buy" their way out of including affordable housing units in their projects. In DC, affordable units are frequently added as a bargaining chip by developers seeking to obtain zoning relief or other exemptions from the government, but they are insufficient to make up for affordable units that are being lost by the city. And so on.
I don't think the city can or should become the housing authority for the entire region. There's nothing wrong with living in Maryland or Virginia.
I don't think the city can or should become the housing authority for the entire region. There's nothing wrong with living in Maryland or Virginia.
I'm not saying that the District should do any such thing. I was merely responding to your point about requiring developers to include affordable units in their projects.
Indeed, there's nothing wrong with living in MD or VA, other than it makes you drive like a lunatic.
For what it's worth, my neighborhood is adding affordable housing. In addition to every major market-rate residential project in Shaw requiring affordable units to be set aside, they are also expanding Lincoln Westmoreland I and building two more subsidized housing projects right next to it. We are actually adding affordable housing to a neighborhood that already has ~15 large/medium sized projects.
For example; as you drive east on RI ave, starting at 9th Street towards 6th, you will pass uninterupted projects (current and pending) in this order: Foster House, Lincoln Westmoreland II, Lincoln Westmoreland I, Parcel 42 (pending) & a new project that will demolish the first half-block of row homes east of there (demo has started). Asbury dwellings is also directly across the street from Parcel 42, but that is primarily elderly housing.
The epicenter of all of this is the Shaw metro station which provides easy access to the rest of the city and a brand new $20 million library. It's also walking distance from the golden triangle. From a location standpoint, it's fantastic.
Unfortunately that metro exit might be partially closed because so few from the subsidized complexes actually use it to go to any jobs, and the people that would are dissuaded by the semi-regular shootings and stabbings (my girlfriend thought it was safe mid-day last sunday, and missed a 11 shot drive-by by 10 minutes). At least it's necessitating a FTE for an armed MPD to be stationed there. Or maybe there is low ridership at the stop because most of the residents at the projects have late-model cars in their private lot. Also the library is quickly becoming a homeless shelter.
Such a shame that middle class citizens are threatening this brilliant urban planning with their condescending home maintenance, racist tax paying and incessant not-shooting-eachother.
Also the library is quickly becoming a homeless shelter.
That's pretty much the case for every DC library. There are limited public spaces for the homeless to congregate in during the day (since most shelters are closed), so they inevitably head into libraries.
It sucks, but that's not something particularly unique to Shaw.
That being said, I think the new Shaw library is awesome--they did a great job with it. Love the fact that there's a Craig Craft sculpture in front.
So, seriously - what's your solution? More affordable housing spread out so poverty isn't concentrated? Fine. Let's do it. What else? Enough complaining and blaming.
Abolish private property.
Next question, BlueFly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
