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 never say never. But, DC would need to do something drastic with current zoning to reach the 1.1 million mark. Under current zoning, the Distict only has the capacity to add about 100,000 new housing units (from the 2010 base, so actually less now). In some cases the District could upzone certain areas upto the height limit area, but that really only gets you to about 150k new households. To get above the million mark will require the district to either raise the height limit (unlikely) or dramatically alter zoning to allow row houses to be knocked down and replaced with apartments (doubly unlikely). https://www.ncpc.gov/heightstudy/doc...020%202013.pdf
At the end of the day the District is largely built out. Sure there is room for growth in NoMa and Capital Riverfront. But, in the grand scheme of things those developments aren't that huge. The Capital Riverfront only calls for 9,000 units or roughly 15,000 people. NoMa is pretty similar in scale. http://www.capitolriverfront.org/_fi...overview09.pdf
None of this is a knock against DC. The reality is modern zoning has severely limited the growth potential of all American cities. All cities basically follow the same growth plan: limited growth in "urban villages or growth zones" and then compatible infill in the rest of the city. Seattle will never get as dense as Boston, DC will never get as dense as SF. SF will never get as dense as NYC, etc. Cities are basically tweeking at the margins.
Or household sizes were just larger back then...when units only house an average of 1.25 people, even a large 300 unit project would only have about 375-400 people living in them. If this was NYC or Philly in 1925, a 2 bedroom unit would house 5 people or even more.
When cities like Seattle have more dogs living in them than children, it's no wonder it can't achieve extremely high densities of people, though the city will still feels structurally dense from the ground.
SF still has those extreme high densities in it's Tinderloin section because house hold sizes are larger than average and apartment sizes are very small. It's also why Paris achieve impressively high densities with just 4-8 story midrise buildings. The apartments are small...even an 800 square foot flat in Paris feels big.
New apartment building these days have larger apartments except the tiny studios and micro apartments. You're not going to get super super high density unless the apartments are smaller.
DC is also still building really large apartments. I'm less bearish on it's growth potential, as I am with say San Francisco, which faces by far the steepest wall of NIMBYism of any modern major American city, but SF builds some damn small apartments in a dense format (everything built right to the curb and to lot lines, parking below grade, sometimes not at all, limited amenities if any), and SF is a city where lots of people always live in fewer bedrooms - it's just that expensive with that lack of housing and that much demand. Hopefully DC can maintain a better balance and still grow as much as it needs, without losing character (I'd say a lot less danger of that than in SF).
DC is also still building really large apartments. I'm less bearish on it's growth potential, as I am with say San Francisco, which faces by far the steepest wall of NIMBYism of any modern major American city, but SF builds some damn small apartments in a dense format (everything built right to the curb and to lot lines, parking below grade, sometimes not at all, limited amenities if any), and SF is a city where lots of people always live in fewer bedrooms - it's just that expensive with that lack of housing and that much demand. Hopefully DC can maintain a better balance and still grow as much as it needs, without losing character (I'd say a lot less danger of that than in SF).
Most of the new, larger developments have a decent amount of amenities and usually parking for at least one car as most of the city still has minimum parking requirements.
^^^most developments are also <50 units, and have no justification for amenities. The >200 unit building is a pretty new and still relatively uncommon housing development in the city. 1:1 parking is not the majority of developments. You really only see 1:1 for condo developments, which total about 1/6 the units going up. The most luxurious and largest is Lumina, 655 condos that will price from $1500/SF or higher and topped off with a $49M penthouse listing, and it provides 655 parking spaces. That's a lot less than 1 per bedroom for the most luxurious large development going up. Its 189 unit affordable housing offset near NEMA (the other large 1:1 development I can think of), has no parking to my knowledge. Jasper is NEMA's high rise counterpart in SOMA, opening this fall. ~300 high rise apartments that will rent at close to $6/sf (NEMA is now at $5.60 avg for it's 754 units). Its parking ratio is considerably less than 1:1 off memory, and it's garage is a robotic automated thing underground in a small footprint. DC builds far more housing to begin with, and it's on average a very different style than what is built in SF.
SF's housing stock is one of the most basic in this country. Landlords don't have the same wide scale new housing competition they do in other cities. Landlords of existing stock don't have to do s**t to keep their renters happy. And even many of the condos in the city are pretty barebones. I've never heard anyone move here from elsewhere and find themselves pleased with the housing options. I was one of those people. One of the few cities where it's actually pretty common to have 3 people making $125K or more each live in a 1,000 SF unit with 1 bathroom. $125K salary doesn't qualify a person for a studio or 1 bedroom at the new, amenitized towers going up.
From what I remember, Boston's 47 square milesstill came out less than Los Angeles, even including Cambridge and Somerville. It was 800-900,000 in 47 square miles. Boston is just smaller.
Or household sizes were just larger back then...when units only house an average of 1.25 people, even a large 300 unit project would only have about 375-400 people living in them. If this was NYC or Philly in 1925, a 2 bedroom unit would house 5 people or even more.
When cities like Seattle have more dogs living in them than children, it's no wonder it can't achieve extremely high densities of people, though the city will still feels structurally dense from the ground.
SF still has those extreme high densities in it's Tinderloin section because house hold sizes are larger than average and apartment sizes are very small. It's also why Paris achieve impressively high densities with just 4-8 story midrise buildings. The apartments are small...even an 800 square foot flat in Paris feels big.
New apartment building these days have larger apartments except the tiny studios and micro apartments. You're not going to get super super high density unless the apartments are smaller.
Most new buildings have two and three bedroom units in DC. I used to live in a 469 unit building that had close to 1,000 people living there because of all the two and three bedroom unit apartments and most one bedrooms had two people. It was a really young building and felt more like a college because of it. Wild parties all night and people coming in and out all day long. The difference in population for buildings is makeup of unit sizes which a lot of people aren't talking about.
LA's densest 47 square mile area is not denser than Philadelphia's or Chicago's. It falls short by about 150,000 people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
I wanted to see how Central Los Angeles would look compared to other cities. For the most part, I adhered to the boundaries in this L.A. Times article. However, I excluded Hollywood Hills and Hollywood Hills West because those are large areas that are sparsely populated. That removes 11.87 square miles from the 57.87 square mile L.A. Times definition (for a total land area of 46 sq. miles).
Population - 831,350 (18,072 ppsm)
Transit Riders - 77,447 (18.39%)
SOV commuters - 249,033 (59.15%)
Walk to work - 19,682 (4.67%)
Bike, cab, other - 11,380 (2.70%)
No vehicle households - 73,074 (21.20%)
I think we already knew this, but if Central L.A. were its own city, it would be the third densest large city in America, literally nipping at SF's heels.
I think nei had posted some really good density calculations before. Probably time to repost those. Do estimates (like the 2014 one) give census tract level resolution?
nei's graphs, I believe, are related to urban area density. The numbers I provided are related more or less to urban core density.
Quote:
Originally Posted by revitalizer
Never?
I'm not convinced.
Perhaps by the year 2250. I think it's safe to say that DC will never see a population of 1.1 million people in our lifetime. I don't think our kids will see it either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by revitalizer
Visits to museums on the National Mall doesn't have to by synchronous to visits to the National Mall. People can go to events and such on the grounds of the National Mall without setting foot in any of those museums.
In most cases they are. The National Portrait Gallery is not on the Mall but most of the other museums are. So a visit to the Air & Space Museum or to the Hirschorn is technically a visit to the Mall.
Last edited by BajanYankee; 06-25-2015 at 07:33 AM..
LA's densest 47 square mile area is not denser than Philadelphia's or Chicago's. It falls short by about 150,000 people.
Actually it is denser, remember you're quoting LATIMES which included a lot of dead weight in their area even with your exclusion of the Hollywood hills. The one kidphilly was talking about was one done by a CD poster showing the densest contiguous 47 sq miles using different boundaries.
This could go back and forth with slightly different boundries forever. Let's just say LA, Philly, and Chicago all have very similar populations in a central 47 square miles, which is an arbitrary measure anyway
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.
