Do you see DC becoming the next NYC? (Washington: short sales, townhomes)

[brooklynborndad]

ft greene in the 1940s

"During World War II, the Brooklyn Navy Yard employed more than 71,000 people. Due to the resulting demand for housing, the New York City Housing Authority built 35 brick buildings between 1941 and 1944 ranging in height from six to fifteen stories collectively called the Fort Greene Houses. Production at the yard declined significantly after the war and many of the workers either moved on or fell on hard times. In 1957-1958 the houses were renovated and divided into the Walt Whitman Houses and the Raymond V. Ingersoll Houses. One year later Newsweek profiled the housing project as "one of the starkest examples" of the failures of public housing. The article painted a picture of broken windows, cracked walls, flickering or inoperative lighting, and elevators being used as toilets. Further depressing the area was the decommissioning of the Navy Yard in 1966 and dismantling of the Myrtle Avenue elevated train in 1969 which made the area much less attractive to Manhattan commuters."

Fort Greene had affordable housing for the Navy Yard workers because of 35 buildings ranging frrom 6 to 15 stories. They were NOT living middle class lives in the townhouses that people today moving to the area adore. By 1959 those hi rises were in serious decline.

[BajanYankee]

Originally Posted by brooklynborndad

ft greene in the 1940s

"During World War II, the Brooklyn Navy Yard employed more than 71,000 people. Due to the resulting demand for housing, the New York City Housing Authority built 35 brick buildings between 1941 and 1944 ranging in height from six to fifteen stories collectively called the Fort Greene Houses. Production at the yard declined significantly after the war and many of the workers either moved on or fell on hard times. In 1957-1958 the houses were renovated and divided into the Walt Whitman Houses and the Raymond V. Ingersoll Houses. One year later Newsweek profiled the housing project as "one of the starkest examples" of the failures of public housing. The article painted a picture of broken windows, cracked walls, flickering or inoperative lighting, and elevators being used as toilets. Further depressing the area was the decommissioning of the Navy Yard in 1966 and dismantling of the Myrtle Avenue elevated train in 1969 which made the area much less attractive to Manhattan commuters."

Fort Greene had affordable housing for the Navy Yard workers because of 35 buildings ranging frrom 6 to 15 stories. They were NOT living middle class lives in the townhouses that people today moving to the area adore. By 1959 those hi rises were in serious decline.

Haha. I knew you would go to Wikipedia.

Here's another way of looking at it. The Fort Greene projects are still here today. Is Fort Greene still a "slum?"

Most black residents of Fort Greene consider the 1950s to be one of the golden ages of the neighborhood. It was a time when brownstones were occupied by middle-class black families, mothers worked as teachers and maids, and fathers worked at the Navy Yard (or for the city). Was it perfect, especially by the ultra-high cleanliness and safety standards of white yuppies? No. But many residents were middle-class with stable employment.

And then the 60s came...

And the Navy Yard closed...

And the riots came...

And then the drugs hit...

And then the black families started leaving for the suburbs warp speed.

And that's when most people will tell you that the area became a dump. I think most of the old-timers look at the 40s and 50s as a good time in Fort Greene's history. Just because white people started leaving does not mean that it became a slum. In 1950, it's fair to say that most white people were racist and didn't want to live around blacks irrespective of their economic standing.

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

We're starting to veer away from the point you responded to in the first place (which happens frequently with you). My point was the following:
.

you asked if DC can grow without its current and likely COL. You seemed to imply that the history of US cities in the 20th century implies it cannot - that urban population growth happened when middle class families could find "affordable housing" such as is not currently available in DC (or the DC area, I dont think your post was clear about which)

To analyze that it was necessary to discuss the specifics of the history of those areas. While AFAIK folks moving to St Louis in 1940s may all have been blue collar workers moving to charming bungalows with gingham curtains and a garage, I think its clear, both from examples at the beginning of the century, from war worker housing, and from the history of NYC, that some US cities in the 20th century gained population in times when stereotypically middle class housing was either affordable to relatively few, or was only found at a considerable commutes distance. IE conditions not SO different from DC today. Which of course does not prove that COL isnt an issue for DC - metro DCs high tech industry finds itself in a different competitive environment than say Baltimore's steel industry in 1947 or NYCs garment industry. It DOES indicate that saying "cities in the 20th century only grew when housing was more affordable relative to income than it is in DC today" is a problematic statement.

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

Haha. I knew you would go to Wikipedia.

Here's another way of looking at it. The Fort Greene projects are still here today. Is Fort Greene still a "slum?"

Most black residents of Fort Greene consider the 1950s to be one of the golden ages of the neighborhood. It was a time when brownstones were occupied by middle-class black families, mothers worked as teachers and maids, and fathers worked at the Navy Yard (or for the city). Was it perfect, especially by the ultra-high cleanliness and safety standards of white yuppies? No. But many residents were middle-class with stable employment.

And then the 60s came...

And the riots came...

And then the drugs hit...

And then the black families started leaving for the suburbs warp speed.

And that's when most people will tell you that the area became a dump. I think most of the old-timers look at the 40s and 50s as a good time in Fort Greene's history. Just because white people started leaving does not mean that it became a slum. In 1950, it's fair to say that most white people were racist and didn't want to live around blacks irrespective of their economic standing.

Im not sure your point. To the extent those th's were affordable for black families, and were NOT yet subdivided into rooming houses (and I know enough of how people look fondly back on the good old days at 60 years remove to want actual evidence, not anecdotes) it was because A. Whites were moving to queens and the suburbs and B. because the presence of the towers (where many navy yard workers had lived) was probably effecting property values.

It also seems very unlikely to me that blacks would not have moved to NYC if affordable housing had been more distant - that so many stayed in NYC, but moved to distant parts of Queens, would suggest that.

And of course I used wiki, I wanted a quick source. Are you trying to arrive at knowledge, or play gotcha games?

[brooklynborndad]

BTW brooklyns population only grew by 1.5% from 1940 to 1950. Not exactly a boom, DESPITE the new public housing. So im not sure that this is relevant to the original question at all.

[JEB77]

Originally Posted by brooklynborndad

compared to NYC and I suppose chicago.

In LA the typical location for such stores is Beverly Hills, IIUC, not the City of LA (let alone the more urban parts of City of LA - OTOH Rodeo Drive is auto unfriendly enough that liking it would practically make one a hipster urbanist taker away of our freedom to some NoVans - ditto, in south florida those are typically located in Palm beach)

Probably SF as well. And, of course, Beverly Hills is entirely surrounded by the City of Los Angeles, so that's not a particularly telling example.

Shops located in Palm Beach (rather than, where, Miami? Fort Lauderdale?) may be a better example of high-end retailers situating outside the largest cities, but your highlighting it suggests that you've gone down the bunny trail of trying to prove a point having lost sight of the main topic. The topic of the thread isn't "Do you see DC becoming the next Miami?" or "Do you see DC becoming the next Indianopolis"?

The issue is whether, compared to NYC or other cities that are typically considered "world class," a comparatively high percentage of the cultural amenities (broadly defined, as appropriate, to include things like restaurants and shopping and not just museums and ballets) and wealth of the metropolitan region are found outside DC. I think it's fairly clear that the answer is "yes"; whether high-end retailers (to the extent they exist) tend to set up shop in some other suburbs, rather than the nearest cities, doesn't disprove that.

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by JEB77

Probably SF as well. And, of course, Beverly Hills is entirely surrounded by the City of Los Angeles, so that's not a particularly telling example.

Shops located in Palm Beach (rather than, where, Miami? Fort Lauderdale?) may be a better example of high-end retailers situating outside the largest cities, but your highlighting it suggests that you've gone down the bunny trail of trying to prove a point having lost sight of the main topic. The topic of the thread isn't "Do you see DC becoming the next Miami?" or "Do you see DC becoming the next Indianopolis"?

The issue is whether, compared to NYC or other cities that are typically considered "world class," a comparatively high percentage of the cultural amenities (broadly defined, as appropriate, to include things like restaurants and shopping and not just museums and ballets) and wealth of the metropolitan region are found outside DC. I think it's fairly clear that the answer is "yes"; whether high-end retailers (to the extent they exist) tend to set up shop in some other suburbs, rather than the nearest cities, doesn't disprove that.

World class cities in the US includes LA and Miami. That beverly hills is surrounded by LA and and that the main malls in Houston and Dallas (I guess) are inside city limits, but DC is geographically small, is an artifact of history, not really a meaningful difference in how the city functions. One might as well point out (with all due respect to BU and Northeastern) that a compariaively high percentage of greater Boston's top universities are found outside Boston, as compared to NYC, or to DC. Of course its a bunny hole, cause its not relevant to begin with.

[BajanYankee]

Originally Posted by brooklynborndad

you asked if DC can grow without its current and likely COL. You seemed to imply that the history of US cities in the 20th century implies it cannot - that urban population growth happened when middle class families could find "affordable housing" such as is not currently available in DC (or the DC area, I dont think your post was clear about which)

Let's make it easy by using the Washington, DC area as our sole example. The types of families that could afford a house in Arlington, Silver Spring or even Shepherd Park back in the day cannot afford to live in these neighborhoods today. We don't even have to go as far back as 1950. One of my friends bought a new house in Silver Spring (inside the Beltway) for $460,000. His newer neighbors are mostly lawyers and other people with advanced degrees and high incomes. Most of his older neighbors are retired teachers and regular GS employees. A teacher and government worker (let's assume a joint income of $120,000, which is more than the median household income in the DC area) today would in all likelihood end up in Germantown or Gaithersburg because the COL inside the Beltway is so high.

So yes, the COL in DC will greatly restrict growth because few people can afford to raise a family there. Forget about preferences. Even if people preferred to live in the city (which many people do), their wallets simply can't bear it.

[BajanYankee]

Originally Posted by brooklynborndad

Im not sure your point.

The question is simple. Does the mere presence of the Fort Greene projects today make Fort Greene as a whole a slum? If the projects made the neighborhood a slum in 1947, then they should certainly make the neighborhood a slum in 2012.

Originally Posted by brooklynborndad

To the extent those th's were affordable for black families, and were NOT yet subdivided into rooming houses

Why do you assume that a practice that occurred during the Great Depression (which most economists agree ended in 1939) continued well into the 1950s? That was a rather exceptional point in American history, would you not agree? That practice was not unique to New York City in the 30s and evidence of its existence after the Great Depression has not been significantly documented. Do you have any evidence that the practice of "doubling up" occurred after the U.S. returned to near full employment after the War? Or are you just guessing that that must have been what was going on because people used to do it when the whole country was at 25% unemployment during the Depression?

Originally Posted by brooklynborndad

Im (and I know enough of how people look fondly back on the good old days at 60 years remove to want actual evidence, not anecdotes) it was because A. Whites were moving to queens and the suburbs and B. because the presence of the towers (where many navy yard workers had lived) was probably effecting property values.

It doesn't matter how middle/working-class blacks acquired their properties. The fact remains that the neighborhood was an attractive destination for black working and middle class families for much of the 1950s.

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

Let's make it easy by using the Washington, DC area as our sole example. The types of families that could afford a house in Arlington, Silver Spring or even Shepherd Park back in the day cannot afford to live in these neighborhoods today. We don't even have to go as far back as 1950. One of my friends bought a new house in Silver Spring (inside the Beltway) for $460,000. His newer neighbors are mostly lawyers and other people with advanced degrees and high incomes. Most of his older neighbors are retired teachers and regular GS employees. A teacher and government worker (let's assume a joint income of $120,000, which is more than the median household income in the DC area) today would in all likelihood end up in Germantown or Gaithersburg because the COL inside the Beltway is so high.

So yes, the COL in DC will greatly restrict growth because few people can afford to raise a family there. Forget about preferences. Even if people preferred to live in the city (which many people do), their wallets simply can't bear it.

They would end up farther out (well relatively, there are areas in NoVa like the rte 1 corridor, or annandale, or springfield, or burke, where they might be able to afford a SFH, and get FCPS schools) or in an apt, or fixing up a townhouse in a transitional area. yeah, to the extent DC is competing for labor with metro areas where COL is lower, that will be an issue. NY has shown its possible to add employment and population with higher COL for the same lifestyle. But as has been said, NYC is special. AFAICT there is much less social stigma to raising a middle class family in a townhouse in this region than there was even 30 years ago. Thats one way the region adapts. In NYC there is no stigma to raising an upper middle class family in an apartment. DC isnt there, and may never get there. We shall see. In the short run the region is adapting in many ways - jobs not strongly tied to the district have moved further out - new TH's have been built at metro stops in inner suburbs (and here and there in the district) - areas have been transformed - and at least singles, DINKs and empty nesters have adapted to apartment living, and thousands of apartments are in the pipeline. If families with children never take to apartment living like in NY, we will soon run out of places to economically redevelop into THs close in. At that point, given that not all jobs can be filled with folks without kids (or can they?) the only chance for the region to grow will be if people commute from townhouses in the areas (like the REX corridor, PG county, etc) where its still feasible to build them, and the commute is not excruciating. Or perhaps they will commute further but telework often.

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

Why do you assume that a practice that occurred during the Great Depression (which most economists agree ended in 1939) continued well into the 1950s? That was a rather exceptional point in American history, would you not agree? That practice was not unique to New York City in the 30s and evidence of its existence after the Great Depression has not been significantly documented. Do you have any evidence that the practice of "doubling up" occurred after the U.S. returned to near full employment after the War?

Im not talking about families doubling up, but about townhouses being converted into rooming houses. Im aware as general background (no cites handy, sorry) that this happened before the depression in places where the the demand for single family townhouses declined, and continued well into the 1960s (take a look at the Anne Tylor novel "celestial navigation" about the inhabitants of a rooming house in what looks like either Mt Vernon or Bolton Hill in Baltimore) I think the famous article by Pete Hamill on park slope indicated the presence of rooming houses there in the 1960s, when renovation began. I know when I lived in Bolton hill in the late 1980s, though there were no rooming houses I was aware of, there were many large ths divided into small apartments.

I therefore suggest its possible there were rooming houses in Ft Greene then, though if what your informants tell you is correct, it sounds like there were not.

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

It doesn't matter how middle/working-class blacks acquired their properties. The fact remains that the neighborhood was an attractive destination for black working and middle class families for much of the 1950s.

If you are still using it as data point on the question of the relationship of housing prices and urban growth, and the analogy of NYC in 1950 to DC today, than it does matter. If you are just trying to prove that fort greene was not a slum, than it doesnt. Clearly if there were safe, well maintained homes inhabitated by middle class black people there, then( as your informants report), than the non - housing project part of ft greene was not a slum, merely an area that was more affordable because of its proximity to slum housing (something not unknown in DC today I might add)

I mean if you were to look for a neighborhood in DC, with middle class people in townhouses, living in close proximity to a much worse area, do you think you couldnt find them? and that it wouldnt be far more affordable than arlington, silver spring, or Shepherd Park?

now NYC had about 8 million people in the five boros in 1950, and there were already a bunch of people in the inner suburbs (a million, two million? Not sure)

Metro DC has Im pretty sure, a much smaller population within the same distance of the CBD. It me worth asking why NYC could fit so many more people in, with still low relative housing prices, than DC can.

To get an answer, it would I think be necessary to look at NYCs entire housing stock at the time (not just at select neighborhoods), and compare that to the housing stock in the same radius around DCs CBD.

here is some material on the history or rooming houses Living Downtown

note, its not from wiki

"As late as 1949, a sociologist described a Los Angeles rooming house district as a "universe of anonymous transients."[3] "