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.
That cannot be inferred from the chart. Population numbers are not given. To be sure, estimates show that D.C.'s population continues to grow. However, the chart only show percentages of millenials among those who are coming and leaving. Millenials are just a lower percentage of those leaving. But as the chart clearly indicates, the pendulum has now swung that a slightly higher percentage of millenials in the 30-34 cohort are among those leaving than among those staying. The purpose of the article is about millenials "considering leaving". If you actually read the article (subject to its own separate thread on this forum), that 30-34 cohort is critical because they are the age group most apt to fill D.C.'s thrust of high income residential development, only if they can afford it. Will D.C.'s growth be sustainable if twentysomethings cram into apartments for a few years but then abscond to more affordable suburbs when they move beyond the "roomie" stage and start single families? The article clearly discusses this.
My hope is that developers and the city realizes how idiotic it is to build an entire city of just studios/1 br spaces and starts switching gears further out in the city (i.e. Fort Totten, Takoma, Benning Road, Van Ness) and building more family-style homes.
I can't believe none of the higher-ups thought about how making an entire city just for 23 year olds would pan out long term. Then again, they just saw dollar signs and weren't thinking about resident sustainability.
They still have time to switch gears. Hopefully they do so. Making the city only palatable to yuppies is idiotic and stupid. One of the things that the article highlights is how younger, transient people do not vote or engage in local politics, because they just aren't as tied to the city. That is dangerous beyond belief.
My hope is that developers and the city realizes how idiotic it is to build an entire city of just studios/1 br spaces and starts switching gears further out in the city (i.e. Fort Totten, Takoma, Benning Road, Van Ness) and building more family-style homes.
I can't believe none of the higher-ups thought about how making an entire city just for 23 year olds would pan out long term. Then again, they just saw dollar signs and weren't thinking about resident sustainability.
I think that the inclusionary zoning policy should be changed to encourage developers to build 2 and 3 bedroom units (both affordable and market) in developments of significant size. Charles Allen, Tommy Wells' CoS/Ward 6 heir apparent speaks to the need for this, so hopefully there will be some movement in that direction and it won't just be limited to the the further out neighborhoods.
This is the thing.
There is not much space to build new homes. Building new homes may sound like a good answer until you realize the stock is inherantly limited in much of DC. Takoma has one little tiny plot of land by the metro station and the Takoma theater otherwise the neighborhood is mostly developed for residential purposes. While in NE there may be more land to build on, it will likely get occupied by SFH which are well outside the price range many can afford as demand moves north and eastward.
In many ways this puts a high demand on the existing housing stock. As those yuppies that come into the city, that want to stick around become part of the market and push up demand to buy homes. Even if a third stay in the city and buy a house you are essentially seeing very high demand. Many will not blink twice about gentrying a neighborhood. Since they have money, they can afford to pay more for that existing housing stock. This is simple market dynamics. Since many of those who do buy a home in the city these days west of the river have the cheat code for life, two professional incomes, higher education, and no kids ever, they essentially are at an advantage in the marketplace over renters who are looking to buy with a nonprofessional income. No policy can remediate this, and to be honest, there will likely be a significant push to prevent new public housing projects, and a push to tear down the remainders as this wealthier group begins to dominate DC neighborhoods. DC will begin to more and more resemble San Francisco or Seattle. I can tell you the couple at $90K is low...guess what happens when you get into $200K+ territory, which is many buying houses right now within DC. This is going to be the reality pretty much anywhere west of the river.
The reality is DC has something which is in high demand now, and will remain in high demand especially as Oil climbs. Walkable urban spaces. It is constantly listed in the top five in this regard. This demand is not going away any time soon.
With regards to Takoma, outside of Walter Reed, the area is pretty much developed in terms of SFH. Considering it is metro accessible (91% of the neighborhood is a half mile from the metro), and a safe neighorhood with decent places to walk too (Old Takoma, Silver Spring) demand is going up there as well.
This is the thing.
There is not much space to build new homes. Building new homes may sound like a good answer until you realize the stock is inherantly limited in much of DC. Takoma has one little tiny plot of land by the metro station and the Takoma theater otherwise the neighborhood is mostly developed for residential purposes. While in NE there may be more land to build on, it will likely get occupied by SFH which are well outside the price range many can afford as demand moves north and eastward.
In many ways this puts a high demand on the existing housing stock. As those yuppies that come into the city, that want to stick around become part of the market and push up demand to buy homes. Even if a third stay in the city and buy a house you are essentially seeing very high demand. Many will not blink twice about gentrying a neighborhood. Since they have money, they can afford to pay more for that existing housing stock. This is simple market dynamics. Since many of those who do buy a home in the city these days west of the river have the cheat code for life, two professional incomes, higher education, and no kids ever, they essentially are at an advantage in the marketplace over renters who are looking to buy with a nonprofessional income. No policy can remediate this, and to be honest, there will likely be a significant push to prevent new public housing projects, and a push to tear down the remainders as this wealthier group begins to dominate DC neighborhoods. DC will begin to more and more resemble San Francisco or Seattle. I can tell you the couple at $90K is low...guess what happens when you get into $200K+ territory, which is many buying houses right now within DC. This is going to be the reality pretty much anywhere west of the river.
The reality is DC has something which is in high demand now, and will remain in high demand especially as Oil climbs. Walkable urban spaces. It is constantly listed in the top five in this regard. This demand is not going away any time soon.
With regards to Takoma, outside of Walter Reed, the area is pretty much developed in terms of SFH. Considering it is metro accessible (91% of the neighborhood is a half mile from the metro), and a safe neighorhood with decent places to walk too (Old Takoma, Silver Spring) demand is going up there as well.
It is for these very reasons that I am advocating things like streetcars. It allows for spaces further from the metro to become viable and legitimate alternatives. You are absolutely right that DC will continue to see population growth and rise in prices. The fact is that walkable cities are what's hot right now, in much the same way the suburbs were in the 50's and 60's. The paradigm has shifted and walkable cities like DC, NYC, SanFran, and the rest will continue to have huge climbs in prices due to demand.
The fact that Takoma has already felt the price hike isn't surprising, but I just don't think that simply because SFHs are already there, developers won't touch it. Unless the residents are steadfast in stopping development, it will happen. As we both agree, there is too much demand for there not to be. People are pouring into the city, many without cars and with little intention to get one. That makes public transit vital to pricing, and so long as the metro is the only real option, these developers will continue pillaging our wallets. Take a look at this map:
This is the eventual future of mass transit in the city, if the city DOT has its way. That allows for so many of those mass transit "deserts" to be housing options.
And wether the residents there want developers to come in and build apts will be a moot point, if every other place in DC hasn't been proof. Those developers will come wether the residents want it or not.
It is for these very reasons that I am advocating things like streetcars. It allows for spaces further from the metro to become viable and legitimate alternatives. You are absolutely right that DC will continue to see population growth and rise in prices. The fact is that walkable cities are what's hot right now, in much the same way the suburbs were in the 50's and 60's. The paradigm has shifted and walkable cities like DC, NYC, SanFran, and the rest will continue to have huge climbs in prices due to demand.
The fact that Takoma has already felt the price hike isn't surprising, but I just don't think that simply because SFHs are already there, developers won't touch it. Unless the residents are steadfast in stopping development, it will happen. As we both agree, there is too much demand for there not to be. People are pouring into the city, many without cars and with little intention to get one. That makes public transit vital to pricing, and so long as the metro is the only real option, these developers will continue pillaging our wallets. Take a look at this map:
This is the eventual future of mass transit in the city, if the city DOT has its way. That allows for so many of those mass transit "deserts" to be housing options.
And wether the residents there want developers to come in and build apts will be a moot point, if every other place in DC hasn't been proof. Those developers will come wether the residents want it or not.
My point is there isn't really many places for developers to put multifamily homes in Takoma. It's not necessarily about community opposition, it's about the space to do so. What can be developed there is already being planned for development. The homes themselves are likely to stay. The same can go for shepherd park. They are both primarily residential communities. Takoma's advantage is it's a half mile from the metro in nearly every direction and it's safe. It is one of the last communities somewhat in reach like this that wasn't been hit by bidding wars. While there will be developers that come, most of their development is going to be focused around Georgia Ave or the Metro. Why? Because most people in Takoma OWN their houses. The neighborhood is also mostly developed. This isn't like columbia heights were there were a large number of renters. Homeowners cannot be displaced quite the same way. What happens instead is those single family houses become very expensive commodities once they reach the market.
My point is there isn't really many places for developers to put multifamily homes in Takoma. It's not necessarily about community opposition, it's about the space to do so. What can be developed there is already being planned for development. The homes themselves are likely to stay. The same can go for shepherd park. They are both primarily residential communities. Takoma's advantage is it's a half mile from the metro in nearly every direction and it's safe. It is one of the last communities somewhat in reach like this that wasn't been hit by bidding wars. While there will be developers that come, most of their development is going to be focused around Georgia Ave or the Metro. Why? Because most people in Takoma OWN their houses. The neighborhood is also mostly developed. This isn't like columbia heights were there were a large number of renters. Homeowners cannot be displaced quite the same way. What happens instead is those single family houses become very expensive commodities once they reach the market.
If there are a large amount of homeowners, you are right. They have much more sway than other areas that don't.
When I used Takoma, I more so meant any place further away that's still metro accessible. Those places that DON'T have as many homeowners are screwed. But I do hope that the developers switch gears and make mixed-family housing. You can definitely do so with apts.
They just need to stop having entire apts built with studios and 1 brs, with a smattering of other sizes.
Also, if all this has proven anything to me, it's that I need to get enough money to OWN property. My god!
It is for these very reasons that I am advocating things like streetcars. It allows for spaces further from the metro to become viable and legitimate alternatives. You are absolutely right that DC will continue to see population growth and rise in prices. The fact is that walkable cities are what's hot right now, in much the same way the suburbs were in the 50's and 60's. The paradigm has shifted and walkable cities like DC, NYC, SanFran, and the rest will continue to have huge climbs in prices due to demand.
The fact that Takoma has already felt the price hike isn't surprising, but I just don't think that simply because SFHs are already there, developers won't touch it. Unless the residents are steadfast in stopping development, it will happen. As we both agree, there is too much demand for there not to be. People are pouring into the city, many without cars and with little intention to get one. That makes public transit vital to pricing, and so long as the metro is the only real option, these developers will continue pillaging our wallets. Take a look at this map:
This is the eventual future of mass transit in the city, if the city DOT has its way. That allows for so many of those mass transit "deserts" to be housing options.
And wether the residents there want developers to come in and build apts will be a moot point, if every other place in DC hasn't been proof. Those developers will come wether the residents want it or not.
I have been following the streetcar debate for some time. At first I was for it. But now I'm leaning towards the belief that the costs outweigh the benefits. This is for two reasons:
1. Capacity
You're tripling the capacity of a Circulator Bus and only increasing the articulated bus capacity by 60 people. That's not a lot of capacity when you look at the cost. The Purple Line light rail project can get 200 persons per car at up to three cars per train. That's 600 persons c0mpared to the largest bus capacity at 157 persons. That's 4x the capacity of the largest available bus.
2. Right Of Way
What you're getting with the streetcar is an articulated bus XL that still has to navigate traffic. What's the point if you can't move all those people as fast as possible? DC could save money by either increasing the frequency of those routes with fancy electric buses, or using more articulated buses which could be electric also. The Purple Line will have it's own right of way.
I have been following the streetcar debate for some time. At first I was for it. But now I'm leaning towards the belief that the costs outweigh the benefits. This is for two reasons:
1. Capacity
You're tripling the capacity of a Circulator Bus and only increasing the articulated bus capacity by 60 people. That's not a lot of capacity when you look at the cost. The Purple Line light rail project can get 200 persons per car at up to three cars per train. That's 600 persons c0mpared to the largest bus capacity at 157 persons. That's 4x the capacity of the largest available bus.
2. Right Of Way
What you're getting with the streetcar is an articulated bus XL that still has to navigate traffic. What's the point if you can't move all those people as fast as possible? DC could save money by either increasing the frequency of those routes with fancy electric buses, or using more articulated buses which could be electric also. The Purple Line will have it's own right of way.
If Light rail were possible in the city, I would advocate that more so than the streetcar. But I'm not sure it is. While I do agree that the streetcar needs to be faster than what they are saying, I do think it is one of the ways we can lower demand in certain areas in the city.
I am more for the streetcar for that reason than anything else. A streetcar can help diffuse demand. For example, on H street/Benning Road, more people would be willing to go into those areas, because now even more transit has reached the area, spurring development and alleviating pressure to build closer to the city center.
The Light Rail is awesome, and if it were possible to put that in the city now, I'd be much more for it than streetcars.
That cannot be inferred from the chart. Population numbers are not given. To be sure, estimates show that D.C.'s population continues to grow. However, the chart only show percentages of millenials among those who are coming and leaving. Millenials are just a lower percentage of those leaving. But as the chart clearly indicates, the pendulum has now swung that a slightly higher percentage of millenials in the 30-34 cohort are among those leaving than among those staying. The purpose of the article is about millenials "considering leaving". If you actually read the article (subject to its own separate thread on this forum), that 30-34 cohort is critical because they are the age group most apt to fill D.C.'s thrust of high income residential development, only if they can afford it. Will D.C.'s growth be sustainable if twentysomethings cram into apartments for a few years but then abscond to more affordable suburbs when they move beyond the "roomie" stage and start single families? The article clearly discusses this.
"Interesting" opinion. Completely unsubstantiated and has nothing to do with me (not sure why you chose to use "you"), my thought process, or my perspective on this thread, but...yeah.
Unsubstantiated. Nothing I see corroborates your assertions. Most studies say that the happiest people in the world are from overwhelmingly Northern European countries with a greater distribution of wealth and a high-tax social welfare network:
of whom most on the list were operated as de facto colonies of the United States and only found their "fortunes" turned around by billions of dollars per year in aid in such bureaucratic boondoggles as the Alliance For Progress. It also didn't hurt that many of the displaced Latin American upper and "middle" classes from American interventions in the region came from their country to metro DC and bolster this area's economy and pool of human capital.
Completely unsubstantiated? Not if you have common sense and eyes and ears. Some of us actually leave our homes and don't need to look at charts and graphs to grasp basic concepts.
Also.. I like how something only needs to be "substantiated" when you don't agree with it. It doesn't matter that people are leaving because more people are coming. Also, we get new college graduates every year. People will live where the jobs are. Moving out of DC is only an option if you get a job somewhere else.
My hope is that developers and the city realizes how idiotic it is to build an entire city of just studios/1 br spaces and starts switching gears further out in the city (i.e. Fort Totten, Takoma, Benning Road, Van Ness) and building more family-style homes.
I can't believe none of the higher-ups thought about how making an entire city just for 23 year olds would pan out long term. Then again, they just saw dollar signs and weren't thinking about resident sustainability.
They still have time to switch gears. Hopefully they do so. Making the city only palatable to yuppies is idiotic and stupid. One of the things that the article highlights is how younger, transient people do not vote or engage in local politics, because they just aren't as tied to the city. That is dangerous beyond belief.
DC of course thinks it is lucrative to cater to only "upscale" developments. But the city also has to account for how much money it loses because of the middle class's inability to reside there. It is the classic Reagonomics fallacy; the erroneous belief that the spending of a few wealthy can offset the consumption of an exponentially larger middle class.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister Zen
Completely unsubstantiated? Not if you have common sense and eyes and ears. Some of us actually leave our homes and don't need to look at charts and graphs to grasp basic concepts.
Also.. I like how something only needs to be "substantiated" when you don't agree with it. It doesn't matter that people are leaving because more people are coming. Also, we get new college graduates every year. People will live where the jobs are. Moving out of DC is only an option if you get a job somewhere else.
Why substantiate something? Because if not, you are just talking out of your a$$. "I think Washington DC is the least diverse major city on the eastern seaboard. I never see people of different races interacting frequently within Senate." That could be my opinion. On some level it is correct. But it is also unsubstantiated and myopic. But that could just be what I see and hear everyday. See how limited your personal "eyes and ears" can be?
So here is some "common sense" for you. People will live AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE to where the jobs are. If DC is not affordable, they won't live there. They will live in far flung suburbs. Your statement of "Moving out of DC is only an option if you get a job somewhere else" makes no sense unless you assume DC is some sort of prison. I hope you will take the time to do some brief reading to understand what a "substantiated" perspective is:
If you bothered to read the link, you would come across these paragraphs:
Locally, the debate over D.C.’s inequities invariably turns to gentrification—the vegan bakeries, artisanal cocktail bars, and glass-walled lofts that have arrived as the District has added an estimated 44,000 people over the last three years. Local building restrictions have put even more upward pressure on the housing market in a city that remains intensely segregated. But D.C.’s poorer, less educated residents are also feeling the squeeze in the labor market, as the new money hasn’t been enough to overcome deep-rooted barriers to employment—and at times has made it even harder for D.C.’s less privileged residents.
White-collar workers without advanced degrees are finding it increasingly difficult to find jobs—or keep the ones they have. Over the last eight years, due to budget cuts and increasing automation, the federal government has eliminated 40,000 clerical jobs, many of which were held by women without college degrees.
You don't strike me as one of the types on these forums that has their pre-arranged sets of Fox News Talking Points and simply parrots them completely out of context. However, at this point I am not certain exactly what you are arguing and why you would be arguing it with me. This is why I'm asking for substantiation; I don't see your point and could use some clarification that is something beyond the espousal of your opinion.
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.
