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.
Technically yes. Philadelphia does not have DC's robust job market. If you shifted DC's entire economy two hours up I-95, then yes, you would see neighborhoods like Strawberry Mansion rapidly gentrify. But that would have nothing to do with streetcars and everything to do with more a more affluent population buying the houses. Streetcars don't spur development. People in search of cheap properties (because they were priced out of the neighborhoods they really wanted to live in) spur development.
In other words, I seriously doubt that H Street would have remained a decrepit ghetto for another decade but for the streetcar, especially considering its proximity to Capitol Hill and Downtown. It was going to gentrify one way or another.
How does this respond to my earlier statement? You see development going on all over Philadelphia. However, you don't see it near off of many streetcar routes. If streetcars were such a boon to development, as you say they are, then why hasn't Girard Avenue hit warp speed gentrification yet?
You're not taking existing context into account. Philadelphia's gentrification is limited by its pre-existing economy, one that mind you is lagging on a multitude of levels. Where it does exist, gentrification is limited by transit access (the Girard Avenue Line isn't really that useful due to its routing, while SEPTA makes Muni in San Francisco look heavenly), geographic proximity to Center City, crime rates that are still pretty terrible on the whole, and a multitude of other factors.
No one is saying that streetcars begin gentrification. What we are saying is that they'll increase the speed at which it's happening. Of course the search for low rents, nice architecture, and the conveniences of urban living are the driving factors of such a process. The question is the speed and extent. Now that most places in the urban core of DC have gentrified to some extent or another, the areas left for improvement have rapidly diminished. By bridging these places together with a fixed rail routing, the following will happen:
Further investment will occur where limited infrastructure meant limited mobility or access by the majority of people.
Those who simply don't want to use buses will have an incentive to use a simpler, more permanent transportation solution (hint: wealthier people).
Cross-city mobility will be rapidly improved. DC is hindered by a radial rail network that makes trips such as Woodley Park to U Street or Columbia Heights inconvenient by Metro, but just as inconvenient to walk. A convoluted and irregular bus system certainly doesn't help.
DC will finally have a redundant transport system. The problem with Metro is that it can't handle its current capacity because it wasn't designed for the use it now gets but there's not enough funding or willpower to upgrade the system with new or modified infrastructure necessary to sustain ridership growth. The addition of the streetcar network will absorb new riders while possibly taking riders who use Metro for shorter trips off the system.
Remember that rail has spurred massive investment before. Neighborhoods like Columbia Heights and Mount Pleasant are historically streetcar suburbs, but nowadays considered urban. Streetcar companies made profits off of accompanying development, similar to what takes place in Hong Kong with MTR Properties.
No one is saying that streetcars begin gentrification. What we are saying is that they'll increase the speed at which it's happening.
You can always increase the speed of gentrification with direct and indirect subsidies, which is what many cities with streetcar lines have done. They could have accomplished the same thing by building a dedicated bus lane and handing out the same subsidies. IMO, a streetcar generates about as much economic value as someone installing granite countertops in his kitchen. What's become of this country when we consider upgrading houses and opening bars and tapas restaurants "economic development?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoking66
Remember that rail has spurred massive investment before. Neighborhoods like Columbia Heights and Mount Pleasant are historically streetcar suburbs, but nowadays considered urban. Streetcar companies made profits off of accompanying development, similar to what takes place in Hong Kong with MTR Properties.
That is completely different. The streetcar was a new technology in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that allowed cities to decentralize and build new communities farther away from the central city than what was previously possible. Streetcars in the 21st century do no such thing.
Technically yes. Philadelphia does not have DC's robust job market. If you shifted DC's entire economy two hours up I-95, then yes, you would see neighborhoods like Strawberry Mansion rapidly gentrify. But that would have nothing to do with streetcars and everything to do with more a more affluent population buying the houses. Streetcars don't spur development. People in search of cheap properties (because they were priced out of the neighborhoods they really wanted to live in) spur development.
In other words, I seriously doubt that H Street would have remained a decrepit ghetto for another decade but for the streetcar, especially considering its proximity to Capitol Hill and Downtown. It was going to gentrify one way or another.
How does this respond to my earlier statement? You see development going on all over Philadelphia. However, you don't see it near off of many streetcar routes. If streetcars were such a boon to development, as you say they are, then why hasn't Girard Avenue hit warp speed gentrification yet?
Considering you don't like DC and you don't think it's a city worth it's salt, why are you even inquiring about what is happening here? According to your constant bashing of DC on the city verse city forum, why do you spend time talking about DC in our forum? You hate DC. It doesn't really make any sense.
Considering you don't like DC and you don't think it's a city worth it's salt, why are you even inquiring about what is happening here? According to your constant bashing of DC on the city verse city forum, why do you spend time talking about DC in our forum? You hate DC. It doesn't really make any sense.
Maryland is very tied in economically to local development and transportation trends in DC - as NJ and LI and NYC are tied together. Also he doesnt mostly post rants.
There are cities ive lived in that I loved, and where I have positive things to say. There is one where I have little positive to say. I do sometimes post in the forums for the former cities, but avoid posting anything in the forum for the latter.
You can always increase the speed of gentrification with direct and indirect subsidies, which is what many cities with streetcar lines have done. They could have accomplished the same thing by building a dedicated bus lane and handing out the same subsidies. IMO, a streetcar generates about as much economic value as someone installing granite countertops in his kitchen. What's become of this country when we consider upgrading houses and opening bars and tapas restaurants "economic development?"
Yeah…no. Rail fosters investment in a way that buses simply cannot. Whether or not there's a bus lane in the grand scheme will have little effect. If people aren't going to ride buses now, the likelihood they will with even those adjustments is low. In the grand scheme of things, it's cheaper to have trams (less overall maintenance) than buses, even if the initial cost is higher. Do you think that we'd have had such intensive development in Columbia Heights if we shot a BRT line up there? No. People follow rail. That's why gentrification in New York follows subway lines (East Village, Williamsburg, East Williamsburg, Bushwick), for example.
No. Massive condo projects bring retail, and most importantly, a lot of white people. Only so many houses in the neighborhood (the majority of which are owned by blacks) will eventually end up in the hands of yuppies. So if I were strictly concerned about my property values (as so many of my neighbors are), then I would have been on the "Build, Baby, Build!" bandwagon a long time ago.
in baltimore neighborhoods turned over completely (from black, or, it being baltimore, from working class white, to yuppie) without benefit of anything other than townhouses. Ditto in Boston. I think its happened in DC too - certainly in parts of Capital Hill. I don't think there's any reason why a complete turnover to yuppies requires condos (of course some of those yuppies will be black).
Yeah…no. Rail fosters investment in a way that buses simply cannot. Whether or not there's a bus lane in the grand scheme will have little effect. If people aren't going to ride buses now, the likelihood they will with even those adjustments is low. In the grand scheme of things, it's cheaper to have trams (less overall maintenance) than buses, even if the initial cost is higher. Do you think that we'd have had such intensive development in Columbia Heights if we shot a BRT line up there? No. People follow rail. That's why gentrification in New York follows subway lines (East Village, Williamsburg, East Williamsburg, Bushwick), for example.
A subway line and a streetcar are two very different things. There are practical reasons for living near a subway line. It's the fastest and most efficient mode of mass transit around. A streetcar, on the other hand, is not going to get you anywhere any faster than a bus would.
And did you even read the article that I posted? There are streetcar lines in Portland that have seen ZERO development. Just read the comments in the article and see what the responses are to claims such as "streetcars are cheaper than buses in the long run."
The first logical question is "How do we know that?" That claim's about as specious as "Lifetime Transmission Fluid." If Metrorail is high maintenance and poorly run, what on earth makes you think that the streetcars will be any different? Because they're "new and advanced and super duper cool?!?" Okay.
I can't wait until the streetcar opens, becomes the new absolute craze for a year, and then starts malfunctioning (which it will). There will be service outages (which will affect the whole system, not just one car). It will get stuck in traffic and not get people to their destinations any faster. And then people will all of a sudden remember why cities got rid of streetcars in the first place.
Are streetcars romantic? Yes. Practical? No. Take it from someone who grew up riding them.
Maryland is very tied in economically to local development and transportation trends in DC - as NJ and LI and NYC are tied together. Also he doesnt mostly post rants.
There are cities ive lived in that I loved, and where I have positive things to say. AThere is one where I have little positive to say. I do sometimes post in the forums for the former cities, but avoid posting anything in the forum for the latter.
You should see what he has been saying about DC on the city vs city board. This guy is one of the biggest DC bashers on this site.
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.
