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.
So, we're supposed to be shocked that a city built for the sole purpose of housing a federal government with workers coming and going from all over the place to help run or participate in the world's most powerful government isn't simultaneously the most carefree, laid back, domesticated city? We're supposed to shake our heads in dismay because people in that city work long hours and care about their careers rather than jam away in garage bands?
Baltimore waits to fulfill your every desire.
No and no. We're just entitled to a bit of a chuckle when the Post suggests otherwise. I'm not sure there's much more to it than that.
However, if I'm being exiled, can I trade Baltimore for Barcelona, Paris, Montreal, Toronto, Sao Paulo, Buenos Aires, New York, Chicago, Boston, Seattle, Portland or Pittsburgh? Baltimore has its own issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly
You can move the goalposts all you want, but the bottom line is that, while there are obviously young people who still move out to the outer suburbs or remain there because that's where they were raised, the overall trend for the highly educated of this generation is in the opposite direction. You just need to look at the shift in housing market demand to know that.
I'd submit you're shifting the goalposts by suggesting that the discussion is now about where the "highly educated of this generation reside." I'm happy to stipulate that plenty who fall in that category in this area prefer to live in DC and the inner suburbs. But, again, others with those characteristics also head out to the exurbs. For example, Loudoun County in VA, which has experienced rapid population growth, has a fairly young average age and is home to many who are extremely well-educated, as evidenced by its high median income.
No and no. We're just entitled to a bit of a chuckle when the Post suggests otherwise. I'm not sure there's much more to it than that.
However, if I'm being exiled, can I trade Baltimore for Barcelona, Paris, Montreal, Toronto, Sao Paulo, Buenos Aires, New York, Chicago, Boston, Seattle, Portland or Pittsburgh? Baltimore has its own issues.
I'd submit you're shifting the goalposts by suggesting that the discussion is now about where the "highly educated of this generation reside." I'm happy to stipulate that plenty who fall in that category in this area prefer to live in DC and the inner suburbs. But, again, others with those characteristics also head out to the exurbs. For example, Loudoun County in VA, which has experienced rapid population growth, has a fairly young average age and is home to many who are extremely well-educated, as evidenced by its high median income.
When you consider almost 1/3 of the population of Loudon County is under 18 and skews the median age of 34 low, it's pretty hard to argue that there's a huge influx of 20-somethings according to the facts. Seems to be a pretty conventional middle age, family-rearing community:
Quote:
In the county, the population was spread out with 29.80% under the age of 18, 5.70% from 18 to 24, 38.90% from 25 to 44, 20.00% from 45 to 64, and 5.60% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 34 years.
Nothing wrong with that, but there's no point in continuing this back and forth. I don't really understand your ultimate goal anyway. You should probably post your issues in the Virginia forum if you want to talk about Loudon County. This thread is about the increase in the highly educated ("lawyer and lobbyist" crowd, as coldbliss calls them) 20-34 year olds who moved to DC in the past decade and their impact on the city.
I don't know what "hip" is or why it's so important. If Miami is hip, then I'm happy DC's not that. There's certainly a lot more culture, food, nightlife, and job opportunities here than there were in the 90s, making DC a nice place to be a professional and still have some fun.
When you consider almost 1/3 of the population of Loudon County is under 18 and skews the median age of 34 low, it's pretty hard to argue that there's a huge influx of 20-somethings according to the facts. Seems to be a pretty conventional middle age, family-rearing community:
Nothing wrong with that, but there's no point in continuing this back and forth. I don't really understand your ultimate goal anyway. You should probably post your issues in the Virginia forum if you want to talk about Loudon County. This thread is about the increase in the highly educated ("lawyer and lobbyist" crowd, as coldbliss calls them) 20-34 year olds who moved to DC in the past decade and their impact on the city.
I don't know what "hip" is or why it's so important. If Miami is hip, then I'm happy DC's not that. There's certainly a lot more culture, food, nightlife, and job opportunities here than there were in the 90s, making DC a nice place to be a professional and still have some fun.
It's a bit silly that you keep redefining what you think this thread - which you did not start - is about. If you simply view it as a discussion of whether lawyers and lobbyists between 20-34, and typically without school-age children, are increasingly happy in the urban campus that large sections of DC have become, we have no disagreement. I agree with Coldbliss, however, that it doesn't make for a particularly compelling Post article. It's kind of like eagerly awaiting the next Washingtonian profile of "Best Podiatrists in Bethesda."
I only mentioned Loudoun County (not Loudon) since its growth and wealth indicate that there are many well-educated folks who are relatively young and have no interest in flocking to, or remaining indefinitely in, either DC or its immediate environs.
It's a bit silly that you keep redefining what you think this thread - which you did not start - is about. If you simply view it as a discussion of whether lawyers and lobbyists between 20-34, and typically without school-age children, are increasingly happy in the urban campus that large sections of DC have become, we have no disagreement. I agree with Coldbliss, however, that it doesn't make for a particularly compelling Post article. It's kind of like eagerly awaiting the next Washingtonian profile of "Best Podiatrists in Bethesda."
I only mentioned Loudoun County (not Loudon) since its growth and wealth indicate that there are many well-educated folks who are relatively young and have no interest in flocking to, or remaining indefinitely in, either DC or its immediate environs.
Still confused. All the Post did was convey the fact that many young adults have moved here and listed some reasons why (nightlife, coffee shops, etc). They interviewed some people and posted their quotes. The article is precisely what I think it's about. I'm not sure how long you've lived here, but I've seen a lot of generations come and go from this area and it's never been some hipster / artsy place and probably never will be.
Anyway, I'm out enjoying this boring, unhip city today. So, have a good one.
School reform is a worthwhile but messy and long-term project, from which we're not going to see many near-term gains. Families with children are declining in cities worldwide, even in places where schools are arguably not nearly as big an issue -- whether in Canada or France, where urban schools and public services are usually better than in the suburbs, or in (until very recently) integrated-schools cities like Charlotte and Raleigh. It's just a matter of degree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JEB77
Those who welcome population growth in cities that, just years ago, seemed inexorably to be losing population love to assert that the "younger generation is moving back into cities," but that has to be reconciled with the fact that the demographics of outer suburbs in the area, such as Loudoun County in VA, actually skew fairly young.
1. The younger generation is *tending* to move back into cities. It's a tendency, not an absolute, and it is absolutely a big deal compared to the freefall that many American cities were facing just a generation ago.
Suburbs are now where most Americans live and work, and where most young Americans live and work; that's no surprise. Similarly, the big trend in the suburbs recently is that less of the population growth is going to the absolute fringe -- the old "growth path" has slowed or stopped -- and that those with more choices (more income, more education) are gravitating to and bidding up prices in the established, less car-dependent, less suburban areas like Arlington, Bethesda, or Reston Town Center. There was so much momentum behind sprawl for so many years that it's not going to stop dead in its tracks (particularly in a growing area like this), but it sure is moving a lot slower.
2. The median age is younger in the outer suburbs partially because there are indeed more children, and fewer seniors since most people "age in place." The "youngest" towns in America are mostly Mormon settlements out west.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JEB77
You may disagree, but I think part of what makes DC less attractive than other urban areas is the fact that so many families tend to leave when they have school-age children. You end up with career-oriented types who move here in their 20s and leave in their 30s, rather than laid-back types exploring alternative paths who've grown up in the city, have roots in the area and make the city their permanent home.
Hmm. I wrote in another thread about the general lack of a hipster scene around here, but I'd posit that "exploring alternative paths" has little to do with mobility vs. transience: many of the least transient places (like, oh, Appalachia) have the most staid and conservative local cultures, and "bohemia" is typically associated with very dynamic places and societies filled with "outsider" risk-takers from everywhere else -- not filled with homebodies who've never left their neighborhoods. The world's most active contemporary art scenes are in places like Berlin, Brooklyn, and Shanghai, where the cities themselves are in rapid flux. Sure, other cities like New Orleans might have interesting art and a largely static population, but arguably its artistic traditions evolved in an era when it was a transient melting pot, and I'd surmise that its artists are more transient than the general population.
Plus, I think that a good country should have its national capital draws smart, ambitious people from all over. That means that smart, ambitious people want to serve their country and their government, and that can't be a bad thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JEB77
cities that successfully attract and retain families and a wider range of age groups (for example, Chicago, Boston, Pittsburgh, Montreal and Toronto) consistently seem to score higher than DC in national and international surveys in terms of overall livability.
I just moved from Chicago, much of my family lives in Boston, and I don't see how the demographic trends are really playing out any differently there. As I mentioned above, the same trends apply even in Canada, where policies in general are more pro-urban. Montreal, in particular, has scads of closed schools repurposed as everything from condos to farmers' markets, but then again the Quebecois birth rate has plummeted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 14thandYou
I wonder just what it is that is being yearned for. You can't just take DC back to the time
Thanks for this. None of us own the city; we just rent it from the next generation of newcomers.
I think that anxiety over gentrification is ultimately just sublimated anxiety about economic inequality -- which is an unfortunate fact of life in a neoliberal post-industrial society. If only people would redirect their anger over gentrification (which they think they can control, since it appears to be local but ultimately stems from global forces) into anger over broader economic fairness!
I only mentioned Loudoun County (not Loudon) since its growth and wealth indicate that there are many well-educated folks who are relatively young and have no interest in flocking to, or remaining indefinitely in, either DC or its immediate environs.[/quote]
Only reason why Loudoun is so wealthy is because the endless amounts of government contractors and their employees that are forced to lived out there same reason why Fairfax and Howard County are so wealthy. Its not because rich educated young people flock to those areas because thats there ideal place to live. Living out in Chantilly by Dulles airport going to T.G.I Fridays on saturday night is not how I want to spend my 20' and 30's
Only reason why Loudoun is so wealthy is because the endless amounts of government contractors and their employees that are forced to lived out there same reason why Fairfax and Howard County are so wealthy. Its not because rich educated young people flock to those areas because thats there ideal place to live. Living out in Chantilly by Dulles airport going to T.G.I Fridays on saturday night is not how I want to spend my 20' and 30's
It's not how I would have wanted to spend my 20s and 30s, either. However, don't assume that everyone thinks like we do. At most there's a reversal of a decades-long outflow from DC; how sustained or permanent that trend is remains to seen.
I work in DC and there are quite a few younger workers in their late 20s and early 30s who bought out in Ashburn in Loudoun relatively recently when they wanted to start families. I certainly don't envy their daily commutes, but they wanted traditional, affordable suburban housing. And, yes, they were highly educated and making more than enough money to buy condos or rowhouses in DC, or closer-in properties in Arlington or Fairfax, had they wanted to do so. And I assume that was also the case for many others who work for the government contractors (who tend to be based in Fairfax and Arlington, not Loudoun) and decided to buy in Loudoun.
Hmm. I wrote in another thread about the general lack of a hipster scene around here, but I'd posit that "exploring alternative paths" has little to do with mobility vs. transience: many of the least transient places (like, oh, Appalachia) have the most staid and conservative local cultures, and "bohemia" is typically associated with very dynamic places and societies filled with "outsider" risk-takers from everywhere else -- not filled with homebodies who've never left their neighborhoods. The world's most active contemporary art scenes are in places like Berlin, Brooklyn, and Shanghai, where the cities themselves are in rapid flux. Sure, other cities like New Orleans might have interesting art and a largely static population, but arguably its artistic traditions evolved in an era when it was a transient melting pot, and I'd surmise that its artists are more transient than the general population.
Very interesting post. I was referring, however, to cities that have a reputation for both stronger neighborhoods AND attracting outsiders who then establish roots and contribute to the local culture. DC attracts career-oriented folks who tend not to be particularly creative in the first place, and then they generally bail once they have kids that reach school age, only to be replaced by even more of the same types who think that DC is awesome because they are more tapas bars than in Wichita.
I don't know exactly where that leaves me, other than to react to the self-congratulatory quotes in the Post article by thinking that, compared to so many other cities where I've lived or spent time, lots of DC just seems like one big Panera Bread, or varations thereon, to me now. There's a lot in DC that's attractive, but somehow the whole strikes me as less than the some of the parts. The article notes that DC's become increasingly popular with empty nesters and I guess that's not surprising, since there is now less crime, but I can think of so many other cities where I'd rather have a place.
This is precisely why your argument confuses me. You seem to be simultaneously insulting DC for being too hip for the middle American simple life and not hip enough compared to the exotic places you lord over us simpletons for finding pleasure in what DC is (a mostly one-industry government town) rather than pining for what it isn't (a bohemian center).
I've lived in a few cities and spent time in several around the world. In the US, really only New York and Chicago are unequivocally more robust. You seem to hold DC to a higher standard, though, since major cities attract people looking for careers and they don't all settle down in Manhattan or Venice Beach when it comes time to pop some kids out. Why is that a bad thing?
I'm curious to know what neighborhoods you spend time in if you think the whole city's one big Panera. Most of my New York friends are impressed when they visit the neighborhoods. They don't expect to find as much going on here and I've never felt a lack of offerings compared to what I've found in cities much larger.
I'm not saying DC's the most interesting city around, but I think you're projecting a historical trend and not giving this new generation a chance to play itself out. These young people aren't just looking for a playground for a few years like their predecessors were.
Wow! The Kaplan Higher Education Post uncovered a shocking development! More 20-somethings have been settling in the city in the past decade. Shocking, I tell you!
And because of the growing 20-something population, DC is changing its reputation from a workaholic nerve center into a more fun, laid-back environment. What better example for the new, party-down DC than a 28 year old lobbyist and a 29 year old wannabee Big Law attorney.
So the aspiring intellectual property lawyer and the insurance industry lobbyist may be "hip" for going to nightclubs and living in a sweet condo near Logan Circle but they chose DC to work their behinds off.
The bottom line is that young professionals in our Nation's Capital have a "Live to Work" attitude. They are high-achievers who strive for promotions, power, and a PHAT paycheck. Nothing more...nothing less.
Bartenders are hip. Tattoo artists are hip. Musicians are hip. Non-Starbucks coffee shop servers are hip. Hell, even bike couriers are hip (the few remaining in the email age). They are "hip" because their priorities and values in life run counter to the dominate mentality of DC culture.
Insurance industry lobbyists and K Street intellectual property attorneys? Not so much. Working 60+ hours a week with a suit and tie does not make you "fun" or "hip". Especially when you are in the business of defending Fortune 500 corporations against labor rights, consumer rights, medical patient rights, environmental reform and against a host of government regulations that would safeguard the health, welfare and sanity of the entire American population.
Fun people tend not to devote a better part of their leisure time in their 20s and 30s working for The Man. Fun people don't have burning ambition to achieve power and status. Fun people don't judge you by your resume and your college alma mater.
My conclusion: 20-something professionals of 2011 are same as 20-something professionals who were here in 2001, 1991, 1981 and so on. All work and little play makes DC a much more boring place compared to other large US cities. Just ask a New Yorker.
My cousin is a bass player for a Portland punk band and her day job is designing video games. She often tells me that her unconventional, creative focused lifestyle is cool but she wishes she could do something really off-the-wall and utterly fulfilling like become an advocate for some multi-billion dollar health insurance conglomerate.
I tell her to get out of Portland and go to that mecca of hipness Washington, D.C.
Sure she would have to throttle all semblance of human emotion, creativity, ingenuity and grace, but at least she would have the opportunity to stroll up and down Adams Morgan every third Saturday night.
And if she can somehow squeeze in a few hours on a weekend for herself away from the office where she puts in 75 hours a week for Aetna's "Government Relations Department", she can stand in a line for a [expletive] cupcake in Georgetown.
Hipness defined.
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.
