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.
Well, you know as well as I do that there is no development happening outside of the core where rail transit is not present. If this was not built there, nothing would be built there. Do you think it would be better to leave it as it is for the next 20 years?
No. I'm just wondering why they didn't put a streetcar line there.
First, you build the streetcar line.
Then people get excited.
Then developers invest billions around the streetcar line.
But I thought the whole point of the streetcar is to promote development. You're supposed to run the streetcar through areas like Carver-Langston to promote density. What sense does it make to run it through areas where high transit ridership is a virtual guarantee?
They aren't trying to promote development where none exists. They are trying to intensify development where only 2-3 story buildings exist in the core. In fact, if you look at the street car map, it is almost entirely in the core. It just fills in the gaps where metro is not present. They are trying to turn the 2-3 story building corridors into 9-12 story building corridors across the core.
They aren't trying to promote development where none exists. They are trying to intensify development where only 2-3 story buildings exist in the core. In fact, if you look at the street car map, it is almost entirely in the core. It just fills in the gaps where metro is not present. They are trying to turn the 2-3 story building corridors into 9-12 story building corridors across the core.
Clearly development is going there. The only question is whether it will be car-oriented or transit-oriented. So why not put a streetcar there and make it transit-oriented? You said before that streetcars are necessary to promote development outside of the core. If there were ever the chance for the streetcar to do that, this is it.
No. I'm just wondering why they didn't put a streetcar line there.
First, you build the streetcar line.
Then people get excited.
Then developers invest billions around the streetcar line.
Isn't that the way it works?
No, because development when it comes to street cars is about return on investment. There isn't enough of a return on investment on surrounding property values in poor areas outside the core to pay for the streetcars. The streetcars are mainly being paid for by property tax from appreciating property values in the core.
Clearly development is going there. The only question is whether it will be car-oriented or transit-oriented. So why not put a streetcar there and make it transit-oriented? You said before that streetcars are necessary to promote development outside of the core. If there were ever the chance for the streetcar to do that, this is it.
Residential mixed use development, not office and retail development. None of the street cars are for office development. They are for residential infill. There is no residential in the Point at Arbortorium. Residential property has to be connected to other neighborhoods to be financially viable. That area is an industrial area. You know how the market works.
No, because development when it comes to street cars is about return on investment. There isn't enough of a return on investment on surrounding property values in poor areas outside the core to pay for the streetcars. The streetcars are mainly being paid for by property tax from appreciating property values in the core.
But the property values go up once you put transit there, right? The streetcar is supposed to be a signal to developers that "the city means business." Then the developers come and build the condos. Once the condos/apartments are built, you can just tax the residents and/or the property owners.
But the property values go up once you put transit there, right? The streetcar is supposed to be a signal to developers that "the city means business." Then the developers come and build the condos. Once the condos/apartments are built, you can just tax the residents and/or the property owners.
A streetcar is not going to attract development to lower income areas that are far from the core. The least amount of development in D.C. is going to be in S.E. across the river along the Minnesota Ave. streetcar. In D.C., streetcars are going to greatly increase property values in the core. The core is the only area that has the infrastructure to support the kind of density coming to D.C. from streetcars. In other cities, they may be trying to rehab storefronts and revitalize areas etc. D.C. is doing the complete opposite by building high-rises along low intensity corridors. Streetcars can serve more than one purpose for different cities.
The point is to keep property taxes where they are at 0.85%. The city is trying to relieve the residents from property taxes and tax commercial buildings and large residential rental buildings to cover the cities tax needs.
A streetcar is not going to attract development to lower income areas that are far from the core.
But this is a direct contradiction of what you said before. Given that most neighborhoods in DC outside of its core that need "densifying" are lower income, then what exactly is the point of the streetcar? Is its purpose to accelerate gentrifcation in areas that were already gentrifying (or likely to gentrify) in the first place?
But this is a direct contradiction of what you said before. Given that most neighborhoods in DC outside of its core that need "densifying" are lower income, then what exactly is the point of the streetcar? Is its purpose to accelerate gentrifcation in areas that were already gentrifying (or likely to gentrify) in the first place?
I don't know of any street car plans in any city that are way outside the core in low density area's. What area's are you talking about exactly? What I said was, that intense development will not happen outside of the core without rapid transit. It can happen in the core without rapid transit. The question however is how intense? Are we talking about a 4 story condo building or a 450 unit condo building. That is what streetcars are going to do in D.C. Can't speak for other cities because I don't know what kind of zoning changes they have in mind.
New York Ave. is not a good example of development outside the core. It's almost outside the city much less outside the core. There is no anchor to develop that area as a developer. No neighborhoods to connect too. Gentrification only works when touching established neighborhoods.
I don't know if you can say that though based on the development style in Baltimore. Given the single family nature of Baltimore's row house's, they don't have the capacity to keep up with apartment buildings. With households being so small right now, it will take a major increase of housing units for Baltimore to every hold over 900,000 people again. I don't see Baltimore being able to build the capacity to hold that amount of people with so much of the city covered with row houses. Do you think Baltimore will start building apartment buildings in place of row houses? How many single family housing unit row houses would be needed in Baltimore to reach 900,000 people with the family sizes in 2013?
LOL so someone says they think Baltimore will have the higher population due to available area which is the most logical way of looking at it and you counter that the row houses can't match up to apartment buildings MD go ahead and just say it already that you think DC will beat both Bmore and Boston in the future in population, you always make threads to boost DC, its getting tiresome already.
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.
MD go ahead and just say it already that you think DC will beat both Bmore and Boston in the future in population, you always make threads to boost DC, its getting tiresome already.
