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.
Do you have kids in DCPS? You seem inclined to turn a blind eye to any bad things that happen in the District because they don't accord with your "sunshine and puppies" view of the city. I don't have an anti-DC agenda (as noted, I spend most of my working hours and many of my leisure hours here), but relatively few parents would blow (no pun intended) past an incident where a fourth-grader brought crack cocaine to a classroom and ended up sharing it with a bunch of classmates, sending them to the hospital.
Whether there's an epidemic of drug abuse at Thomson is not relevant; the point is that something like that was widely reported and obviously sets back efforts by DCPS to convince the types of folks you keep arguing are going to remain in DC that schools in the District are safe and nurturing. Most parents don't want to send their kids to schools with metal detectors; for that to be required and then still have incidents like what recently happened at an inner-city school like Thomson is adding insult to injury. The upshot is that some things that you like to portray as near-certainties for the future are far less certain of being realized.
As Terrence81 just noted, there is also drug use at suburban schools. But the reality is that parents are going to pay more attention to crack cocaine at a public elementary school in the city, with all that connotes, than to drug use that typically takes place on the weekends, and behind closed doors, among suburban students.
I am more than happy to point out the shortcomings of DC. On this thread alone I've repeatedly pointed to DCPS as a root problem driving people away from the city (not a desire to leave the city). When you point out a specific incident in a specific school to implly that there's major problems there when there aren't, I'm going to point out that you are wrong.
Anyway - as I said before, you're veruy attached to your belief, even after the reasons for remaining attached have been disproven.
As the husband of a suburban schoolteacher, I can absolutely vouch for this.
All you can vouch for is that your wife knows there's also drug use in the suburbs. If you drill down, you'll find that drug use, arrests and related violence remains higher in urban areas.
You consistently miss the point, not recognizing the early indicators and rather trying to use overall demographics to claim that the status quo hasn't changed.
Perhaps you are missing the point. Maybe the decline in Kindergaten enrollment means exactly what most non-delusional people think it means: SWPL parents allow their kids to attend Pre-K in DCPS to watch Barney and take naps, and then yank them out as soon as the real education begins.
You've also failed to consider the very real possibility (or likelihood) that more affluent families in Upper NW are placing their kids in DCPS temporarily due to economic reasons. We've all had to cut back in these tough economic times. After all, what's the point of blowing $15K a year for your kid to scarf down Lunchables when they can do it for free in public school.
I know this wasn't directed at me in particular, but I am certainly not turning a blind eye to the bad things in the District. And, I have not blown past the crack incident at Thomson. In fact, I would like more information and accountability.
Although I do think that DCPS has responsibility in the Thomson incident, I want to point out that suburbia is not free of these problems. In fact, this one was transplanted directly from the suburbs - the child who brought in the crack was actually not a DC resident; he was from the suburbs attending school illegally.
Also, in comparing statistics, it is important that we don't simply use the number of students enrolled in public schools when dealing with DC students. Currently, DCPS has about 45K students, but there are an additional 28K enrolled in public charter schools. If you look at just the public school numbers, it ignores more than a third of the children receiving free education in DC.
Also, the number of families with children does not always correspond with the number of children. Professionals choosing to live downtown tend to have a fewer number of children than the families that are leaving other parts of the city.
Also, the number of families with children does not always correspond with the number of children. Professionals choosing to live downtown tend to have a fewer number of children than the families that are leaving other parts of the city.
It is of no consequence whether black households have more children on average than white households. The point is that white families (which by definition in this region means a minimum of middle-class) are not in the District, but somehow manage to find their way to Bethesda, Fairfax, and Rockville.
I am more than happy to point out the shortcomings of DC. On this thread alone I've repeatedly pointed to DCPS as a root problem driving people away from the city (not a desire to leave the city).
It drives out some and deters others from ever wanting to live in DC. If anything, however, the "lawyer/lobbyist" crowd tends to prefer a DC residence while single or married without children, and then leave DC is droves once they start having school-age kids.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly
When you point out a specific incident in a specific school to implly that there's major problems there when there aren't, I'm going to point out that you are wrong.
So, anecdotes are fine when it comes to the wave of affluent families who allegedly will be living in DC in the future, but not when it comes to a recent, real-life incident at a DC elementary school?
In any event, the correct inference to be drawn from the Thomson situation isn't that DC elementary schools are rife with drugs on school grounds, but instead that positive developments at DC schools, when they occur, can be over-shadowed by the negative stories. What do you think got more press coverage, and made a stronger impression, on a yuppie couple with a toddler: (1) reading scores went up 5% of Elementary School X in SE; or (2) a kid brought crack to a school that serves a transitional neighborhood in NW?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly
Anyway - as I said before, you're veruy attached to your belief, even after the reasons for remaining attached have been disproven.
The only "belief" here to which I'm firmly wedded is that data is more indicative of the choices that people actually make than anecdotes and self-serving predictions.
The group whose values are changing are the overall homebuying public. (Note that I am not saying "families with children.") Whether those values are shifting because the composition of that group is changing, or whether those values are shifting within people's brains, does not matter to those people who are trying to sell to that group.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
How can you possibly say there's been a paradigm shift when the rate of growth in the suburbs is outpacing that of the cities. We're not talking about absolute numbers here. It's simply saying "Loudoun County grew at X rate" and "the District of Columbia grew at X rate." Numbers are irrelevant. When the suburbs are still outgrowing the cities by leaps and bounds, I find it hard to believe that America is entering a "new age of reurbanization."
Again, I ask: did you ever take calculus? The rate of change is not what's remarkable here, but rather the rate of change of the rate of change. And yes, in fact, this stuff IS complicated, which is why you can't see my point.
Let's say that I sell ice cream.
Sales of Boysenberry were down 3% the past two weeks and down 1% this week.
Sales of Habanero were up 6% the past two weeks and up 4% this week.
Yes, Habanero sales are still increasing. Yes, boysenberry sales are still decreasing. BUT: a forward-thinking analyst looking at what's next will notice that boysenberry sales are picking *up* from their downward trend, and that the habanero sales trend is about to crest. I might want to be a little cautious about buying crates of habaneros. Or, as Bluefly says:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly
You consistently miss the point, not recognizing the early indicators and rather trying to use overall demographics to claim that the status quo hasn't changed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
how many families do you know living in a place like Ballston or Atlantic Station?
I keep telling you: it doesn't matter. "Families" are a fast declining share of American households -- see page 4 of this Census report. Breaking those numbers down further, the proportion of households with children at home (married couples or single parents) has dropped from 45% in 1970 to 31% in 2008. (Married couples with kids are down to 21%; I doubt many single moms really relish mowing big lawns.) School quality only directly impacts less than one-third of households.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
Let's be real here. These developments are catering to a specific subset of the population
Well, and let's be real here: big suburban houses with yards are also "catering to a specific subset of the population," one which is much smaller than you persist in thinking. Families with children are overrepresented among buyers of new-construction houses, and among homeowners, which probably explains why you see lots of McMansions being built -- but also keep in mind that one condo building can house as many units as an entire suburban subdivision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
In fact, we can just use local examples to prove my point. How many dense, walkable suburban neighborhoods have been built in the DC area in the past 10 years? How many cookie-cutter, single family home neighborhoods have been built in the DC area in the past 10 years?
I'm not sure how many times I have to explain this, but due to momentum (and the long time to market for developments) things don't exactly change on a dime in the development industry. There are a lot of different players, and each has their own inertia. Rome wasn't built in a day; why do you expect that this city will magically be rebuilt in a day?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JEB77
The only "belief" here to which I'm firmly wedded is that data is more indicative of the choices that people actually make than anecdotes and self-serving predictions.
Really, though, this whole thread started with a rant about gentrification run amok. Gentrification wouldn't be a problem in cities if people with money vastly preferred living in suburbs to living in cities. Forest, trees, anyone?
Really, though, this whole thread started with a rant about gentrification run amok. Gentrification wouldn't be a problem in cities if people with money vastly preferred living in suburbs to living in cities. Forest, trees, anyone?
Thanks for the links. The data that I'd mentioned was the Census finding, reported in the Post, that the number of school-age children in DC declined over the past decade. My challenge to other posters was to provide data to back up their assertions that this trend had reversed itself, not that people responding to surveys would express a preference for single-family housing that is (1) close to their workplaces; (2) in a walkable neighborhood; (3) in an area with good schools; and (4) affordable.
While I haven't read all the links you provided, that's what the survey results seem to show, and I don't find that at all surprising. It's not clear to me, however, whether that will ultimately draw substantially more middle and upper-middle class families with children to DC. What I hear you and Bluefly saying, in essence, is (1) it doesn't really matter, since families with children are just one part of society; and (2) it's more important to recognize that people are embracing denser and transit-oriented development than to worry about whether they'll end up in DC or some other part of the DC region.
If that's how you want to frame the discussion, I don't really have any disagreement with you, only a different perspective on what makes a city - in this case, DC within its legal borders - attractive (and here I distinguish between DC's architecture, which I find very charming, and its overall sense of place, which I find lacking compared to many other cities in the U.S. and abroad). At least where families are concerned, however, the information that you've provided makes me think it is at least as likely that DC suburbs - with their jobs, stronger school systems, and varying levels of commitment to more transit-oriented development - will benefit from current housing preferences and trends as will DC - with its many jobs and cultural amenities, but also limited supply of single-family homes, low-achieving public schools and continued high levels of poverty - itself.
Also, while I appreciate your "ice cream" analogy, how do you interpret the data on p. 15 of the EPA report? That seems to indicate that new housing starts in DC and its inner suburbs (Alexandria and Arlington) peaked in 2006 and thereafter started to decline again relative to the "1st Tier Suburban Counties" (including Montgomery, Fairfax and PG) and the "Urban Fringe Counties" (which include places like Loudoun and have consistently had the highest level of new housing starts in the area since the late 1990s). It struck me that a lot of the growth in DC, Arlington and Alexandria in the early part of the last decade were new condos, and that this growth may have started to taper off after the supply of expensive new condos ramped up. However, I gather you work in commercial RE, so perhaps you have a different interpretation.
The group whose values are changing are the overall homebuying public. (Note that I am not saying "families with children.") Whether those values are shifting because the composition of that group is changing, or whether those values are shifting within people's brains, does not matter to those people who are trying to sell to that group.
This is not accurate. What we have are more single people buying homes than at any point in history. This is not the same as a paradigm shift. A paradigm shift would be when families reverse the trend of leaving the city to move back into it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paytonc
Again, I ask: did you ever take calculus? The rate of change is not what's remarkable here, but rather the rate of change of the rate of change. And yes, in fact, this stuff IS complicated, which is why you can't see my point.
Lol. No, it's not complicated.
The increase in the rate of change will obviously be high for any city that posted a gain this Census when it posted a loss the previous Census. There's nothing remarkable about that. DC gained about 28,000 people this decade. But it also lost 132,000 people in one decade. Just because more young professionals are moving to the city does not mean that the "American Dream" has changed any.
And you still haven't dealt with the fact that DC is growing when the region as a whole is growing. How can you possibly say that there's been this fundamental shift in values when the suburbs are clearly growing faster than the city? When people move to the region, the overwhelming majority of them are not choosing to live in DC. And the overwhelming majority of families are not choosing to live in DC. You claim there's this "value shift" when the only evidence presented shows that young singles are driving the population growth in DC. So because young urban professionals are moving to the city means that America is undergoing this radical paradigm shift? If your point is simply that young professionals are repopulating cities, then point conceded. That's the only "trend" the evidence shows, however.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paytonc
I keep telling you: it doesn't matter. "Families" are a fast declining share of American households -- see page 4 of this Census report. Breaking those numbers down further, the proportion of households with children at home (married couples or single parents) has dropped from 45% in 1970 to 31% in 2008. (Married couples with kids are down to 21%; I doubt many single moms really relish mowing big lawns.) School quality only directly impacts less than one-third of households.
Hey Sherlock, those same single households (like me!) will get older one day and likely head for the burbs. You can ASSUME (and hope) that they will stay in the city, but history has shown us otherwise. Many of the singles who lived in the areas of DC that have always been nice (Georgetown, Tenleytown, etc) back in the 70s and 80s ended up leaving the city, too. What makes you think this current generation will be any different?
Again, I don't see how more 28-year old patent lawyers buying houses shows a radical shift in values. Especially when they turn around and move to Virginia four years later. The "trend" over the past four decades has been middle-class families leaving the city. In order for that trend to reverse itself, we need to see evidence of middle-class families moving back into the city. Where is it?
Last edited by BajanYankee; 05-15-2011 at 08:46 AM..
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.
