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.
Northeast - Was maybe 50% gentrified when I left 5 years ago. Going by how many of my DC friends have moved from NW to NE neighborhoods like Brookland, Trinidad, and H St NE since I left, I'm assuming that the Northeast quadrant is much further along now.
Southwest - Maybe 50%? But its tiny so it won't take long
The Near Southeast - Gotta be close to 100%. Capitol Hill was always nice but with all that development around M St SE and the ballpark, what's left to gentrify?
The Far Southeast - Probably the last frontier. Wards 7 and 8 are the poorest in the city. But things are changing. Isn't Anacostia supposed to get a streetcar line and isn't St Elizabeth's getting some massive federal government-funded redevelopment? Like I said, I left 5 years ago so maybe all that stuff has already happened.
So yeah, I'm sticking with my 10 year number.
Yes and yes.
Don't know if you saw this 5 years ago, but I have noticed more yuppies, especially white yuppies, walking on Benning Road. Imagine when we'll start seeing them on Minnesota Ave!
Don't know if you saw this 5 years ago, but I have noticed more yuppies, especially white yuppies, walking on Benning Road. Imagine when we'll start seeing them on Minnesota Ave!
Not Benning Road but very close to it: I remember just before I left a hipster speakeasy afterhours place called Jimmy Valentine's Lonely Hearts Club opened on Bladensburg Road just north of H Street. Not gonna lie...it was a cool spot. They'd lock the doors after 2pm and you could get served at 4am
Northeast - Was maybe 50% gentrified when I left 5 years ago. Going by how many of my DC friends have moved from NW to NE neighborhoods like Brookland, Trinidad, and H St NE since I left, I'm assuming that the Northeast quadrant is much further along now.
Trinidad and H Street are still very dangerous places especially at night time.
Southwest - Maybe 50%? But its tiny so it won't take long
The Near Southeast - Gotta be close to 100%. Capitol Hill was always nice but with all that development around M St SE and the ballpark, what's left to gentrify?
Lol how about the other half of M street which includes Greenleaf Gardens, Syphax Village, James Creek and several apartment buildings that have tenants that use rental subsidies.
The Far Southeast - Probably the last frontier. Wards 7 and 8 are the poorest in the city. But things are changing. Isn't Anacostia supposed to get a streetcar line and isn't St Elizabeth's getting some massive federal government-funded redevelopment? Like I said, I left 5 years ago so maybe all that stuff has already happened.
Yes the streetcar to nowhere is finished but now what? And yes DHS has built a massive closed federal facility that will do nothing for the surrounding neighborhood. What did Walter Reed do for Georgia Ave? What has Bolling AFB done for SE? What has Fort McNair done for SW? What has the census bureau done for Suitland. That's right the answer is not a D_mn thing.
So yeah, I'm sticking with my 10 year number.
I wouldn't put your money on it if I were you.
What part of NE are you referring to? You do realize that there are 2 parts to the NE quadrant right??? NE is definitely not 50% gentrified right now. Also NW is not 100% gentrified yet. If you don't believe me check out large swaths of Georgia avenue. Listen.... They have been saying wait until the next 10 years in DC for at least the last 20 years. The investors and speculators are the only ones that are benefiting from that type of foolish talk. You clearly don't know much about DC's demographics or it Geography.
What part of NE are you referring to? You do realize that there are 2 parts to the NE quadrant right??? NE is definitely not 50% gentrified right now. Also NW is not 100% gentrified yet. If you don't believe me check out large swaths of Georgia avenue. Listen.... They have been saying wait until the next 10 years in DC for at least the last 20 years. The investors and speculators are the only ones that are benefiting from that type of foolish talk. You clearly don't know much about DC's demographics or it Geography.
I mean I only lived there for 6 years and wrote for 2 different blogs about DC real estate development and urban planning
Gentrification in Brooklyn has extended well beyond the brownstone belt. All the brownstone areas have gentrification, but the corridor of Victorian homes in Central Brooklyn (usually called Victorian Flatbush, or as individual neighborhoods like Cortelyou, Ditmas Park and the like) are all heavily gentrified, and well beyond the brownstone belt. There's also a ton of neighborhoods that defy easy characterization that have some degree of gentrification (places like Kensington, Sunset Park, Bushwick, Prospect Lefferts Gardens, and Bay Ridge).
I would say around 40% of Brooklyn has some measure of "Manhattan-style" gentrification (so broadly defined as hipsters, yuppies or whatever you want to call affluent, educated younger people).
But the discussion is really fuzzy, because there isn't really a clear definition of gentrification. Bushwick is getting tons of hipsters, but they're generally far from affluent. Sheepshead Bay has no hipsters, but is getting lots of affluent Russians buying into new condos. I think the former would be called gentrification and the latter wouldn't, but really the latter is changing more by influx of new people with money and has more outward signs of gentrification (condos, chain stores and the like).
I wouldn't consider bay ridge a gentrified area. If anything more locals speak about it then transplants. I agree with everything else though.
I wouldn't consider bay ridge a gentrified area. If anything more locals speak about it then transplants. I agree with everything else though.
I wouldn't consider it a gentrified area either, but there are lots of "gentrification" types there in the last 5-10 years or so.
But it's hard to classify, because it was always a fairly prosperous area, so there isn't really a need to "upgrade", and in any case, the local long-time ethnics are much richer than than the newcomer hipster types.
I wouldn't consider it a gentrified area either, but there are lots of "gentrification" types there in the last 5-10 years or so.
But it's hard to classify, because it was always a fairly prosperous area, so there isn't really a need to "upgrade", and in any case, the local long-time ethnics are much richer than than the newcomer hipster types.
Seems like the growing Arabic population make up most of the new comers.
The only cities that enter the national discussion regarding gentrification are NYC/Brooklyn/NJ, SF, and DC. Right now, SF is in the media spotlight for its high housing costs and expansive/rapid gentrification, sparking national news stories about acts of class warfare and basic "survival" of lower and middle classes, and a re-examining of city laws such as the Ellis Act (Ellis Act Evictions are a national news story related to SF right now).
DC has been in the spotlight a good bit, as well, as has NYC/Brooklyn/NJ now for 20 years or so.
LA is too large and spread out to see "massive widescale gentrification". Boston has always been an "expensive" place to live that seems like it has always been generally nice save for a few working class parts that have gentrified, but I can't recall it being a major news story like SF is now. Chicago is way too massive and still has large sweeping middle to lower class hoods that will probably always be middle to lower class hoods. Doesn't seem like it's changed all that much since my mother grew up there (Northside = nice, DT/Near North = high rise living, Southside = ghetto since a decade after my grandfather came out of Chicago med school). Philly is still mostly working class and is not an expensive unachievable city for most. Atlanta is flat out ghetto over much of the land area, while the neighborhood Buckhead has always been nice/rich (same story as Chicago with north vs south side).
When I hear that Hayes Valley used to be about the worst part of SF as recently as mid 90s, it blows my mind. It's one of the most expensive and nicest parts of the city now with upscale boutiques and restaurants and really expensive high-end housing. Even the world class armpit that is the Tenderloin is gentrifying and seeing $6+/sf rents (rent levels not being achieved in other expensive cities such as Boston and DC).
I think for the here and now it's SF. 2-3 years ago one would have said DC. For most of the past 20 years anyone would have said NYC. None of the other cities even come to mind on a national news story scale.
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.
