D.C. is now adding more people than any other county in VA. What does it mean? (Arlington: sale, 2014)

[TransitAdvocate]

Originally Posted by Caladium

Why would we want to compete with DC? They're a city and we're the burbs, so we appeal to two different types of people. Both areas can be healthy and co-exist, just like Long Island is completely different from and yet co-existent with NYC.

True, however, we're trying to build a little city in the burbs. Long Island is nothing like what we're doing in Tyson's Corner. I'm not dumb enough to think we could ever be D.C., however, high population growth was the one thing we did have going for us. D.C.'s population rate compared to the suburbs is only going to increase as the city keeps getting better. NYC is the same way. Everyone is dyeing to get into the city if they can afford it. D.C. is going to get the same way. I just feel like we had a missed opportunity. It's just too late now in my honest opinion for urban living in the suburbs. Well, atleast in my lifetime. I guess I thought we would be able to do it faster. D.C. booming doesn't make it easy to attract young people.

[TransitAdvocate]

Originally Posted by Caladium

According to this article, the growth rate is strong in all the suburban areas of DC. So it looks like plenty of people are choosing Tyson's, just like plenty are also choosing DC.

We will always have people moving here to live in single family homes and we will always have families and babies to keep the population growth up. I'm talking about all these towers they are about to build in Tyson's Corner. Who is going to live in them?

[JD984]

There are a lot of jobs in Tysons, and the public schools in NoVa - while not without their issues - are far more desirable than most of DCPS. We'll see what happens. Not much of the denser development contemplated for places like Tysons has yet gone up so it's difficult to predict exactly what the absorption rate will be and whether that will accelerate or slow down additional projects.

I do see when I look at similar townhouse developments in places like Brookland (a neighborhood near Catholic University in DC), Merrifield (near Tysons), Arlington and Hyattsville, the Arlington townhouses are most expensive, followed by those in Merrifield and Brookland, with those in the Hyattsville Arts District selling at a steep discount to those elsewhere. So whatever is happening in DC, it seems that the impact is more keenly felt in Maryland than Virginia.

It's also misleading, of course, to say that more people are moving into DC than the VA or MD suburbs. What the latest Census data predicts is that slightly more people moved into DC in 2013 than into Loudoun, slightly more people moved into Loudoun than Fairfax, and so on. The total moving into the NoVa suburbs/exurbs is higher than the number who moved into the District. The same is true if you were to compare the estimates for DC with the combined estimates for the Maryland suburbs of DC.

[Carlingtonian]

Originally Posted by Back to NE

These are mostly 20-somethings coming to DC, wanting jobs, cool urban living and car-free lives. 20-somethings are easily the largest age demographic in DC now.

Of course some of them will marry, have kids and give it up to move to Tysons, Reston and the other commonplace suburbs.

This is what one often sees happen. The city is oh-so-cool until you need good schools and low crime.

Originally Posted by Caladium

That's one positive side to the traffic congestion--it discourages long commutes. I've long been a fan of living as close to work as possible for a number of reasons.

I've heard this argument before, and I would assume it must be true for someone--but based on personal observation, there are a TON of people willing to do whatever it takes to get their 5BR house in South Woodtilly LakeBridge; some leave home at 4AM.

I myself would take a job far away if I could get a major promotion out of it.

[TransitAdvocate]

Originally Posted by Carlingtonian

This is what one often sees happen. The city is oh-so-cool until you need good schools and low crime.

I agree, however, D.C.'s crime is only going to get better. Every year that passes, D.C. changes more and the image of the city gets better. I think we have taken great advantage in the 1980's-1990's in NOVA of the crime and blight in D.C. providing a great alternative when people move here. As D.C. becomes like Manhattan or San Francisco, we aren't going to be able to compete with a city like that just like places outside those cities can't compete with NYC. We are going after the same population.

Also, schools are not going to stay bad in D.C. It's a population shift. That means schools too. If everyone in the city is rich, what do you think the schools will be like? It's happening already.

[TransitAdvocate]

Originally Posted by JEB77

There are a lot of jobs in Tysons, and the public schools in NoVa - while not without their issues - are far more desirable than most of DCPS. We'll see what happens. Not much of the denser development contemplated for places like Tysons has yet gone up so it's difficult to predict exactly what the absorption rate will be and whether that will accelerate or slow down additional projects.

I do see when I look at similar townhouse developments in places like Brookland (a neighborhood near Catholic University in DC), Merrifield (near Tysons), Arlington and Hyattsville, the Arlington townhouses are most expensive, followed by those in Merrifield and Brookland, with those in the Hyattsville Arts District selling at a steep discount to those elsewhere. So whatever is happening in DC, it seems that the impact is more keenly felt in Maryland than Virginia.

It's also misleading, of course, to say that more people are moving into DC than the VA or MD suburbs. What the latest Census data predicts is that slightly more people moved into DC in 2013 than into Loudoun, slightly more people moved into Loudoun than Fairfax, and so on. The total moving into the NoVa suburbs/exurbs is higher than the number who moved into the District. The same is true if you were to compare the estimates for DC with the combined estimates for the Maryland suburbs of DC.

Really? I didn't know that. For the same price per square foot? I would think the ones in D.C. were smaller with a higher price per square foot right? Do you know?

D.C. is only like 60 square mile's though. I still don't see how D.C. could have added more people than places 400-450 mile's larger. Where do they live? I mean, in Loudoun county, you have tons of land so adding 12,000 people isn't really a lot of people. I don't see how a place so small is adding so many people. I understand NYC which is like 300 sq. miles. But D.C.?

[airjay75]

Originally Posted by TransitAdvocate

I agree, however, D.C.'s crime is only going to get better. Every year that passes, D.C. changes more and the image of the city gets better. I think we have taken great advantage in the 1980's-1990's in NOVA of the crime and blight in D.C. providing a great alternative when people move here. As D.C. becomes like Manhattan or San Francisco, we aren't going to be able to compete with a city like that just like places outside those cities can't compete with NYC. We are going after the same population.

Also, schools are not going to stay bad in D.C. It's a population shift. That means schools too. If everyone in the city is rich, what do you think the schools will be like? It's happening already.

But, even in SF and Manhattan, there are plenty of people that go to the suburbs. Just like DC, those cities have enough demand to go around. There are those who are going to go for the city and there are those that are going to want their SFH and yard in the suburbs. Not everyone wants walkable, urban living. My wife and myself, for example. She's 27, I'm 32. No kids. We tried living in center city Philadelphia for a few years and simply didn't like urban living. When it came time to buy a home, we went for the SFH in the suburbs, and really have very little interest in moving to a more urban environment. Now, we're definitely not the norm for our age group, but my point is that in a metropolitan area like DC, there are going to be people who want to live in a variety of different areas. Maybe DC will have the most demand, but that doesn't mean the suburbs won't have a lot of demand too. At least as long as the economy in this area continues to prosper the way it has.

[Carlingtonian]

Originally Posted by TransitAdvocate

As D.C. becomes like Manhattan or San Francisco, we aren't going to be able to compete with a city like that, just like places outside those cities can't compete with NYC. We are going after the same population.

I agree the crime rate in DC has improved since the '70s and will probably continue to do so.

I've lived in Manhattan (briefly). Of course it's in high demand--but I would bet that for families (other than the super-rich), Westchester and New Jersey are more desirable. I think most of the demand in NYC is from young Wall Street types, singles, divorcees, and otherwise childless folks who like the urban lifestyle.

To accurately compare NYC and DC, one can't single out Manhattan; just as DC has huge, quiet areas of single-family houses, NYC does too, in the other boroughs. The difference is that DC is much smaller, and so the only single-family houses are either extremely expensive (west of Rock Creek Park) or in low-income areas that still have high crime (mostly in NE and SE).

Re. the original question of what DC's population renaissance means: I think it's basically a correction of white flight and the riots of the late '60s.

[TransitAdvocate]

Originally Posted by airjay75

But, even in SF and Manhattan, there are plenty of people that go to the suburbs. Just like DC, those cities have enough demand to go around. There are those who are going to go for the city and there are those that are going to want their SFH and yard in the suburbs. Not everyone wants walkable, urban living. My wife and myself, for example. She's 27, I'm 32. No kids. We tried living in center city Philadelphia for a few years and simply didn't like urban living. When it came time to buy a home, we went for the SFH in the suburbs, and really have very little interest in moving to a more urban environment. Now, we're definitely not the norm for our age group, but my point is that in a metropolitan area like DC, there are going to be people who want to live in a variety of different areas. Maybe DC will have the most demand, but that doesn't mean the suburbs won't have a lot of demand too. At least as long as the economy in this area continues to prosper the way it has.

I sure hope so because I really want Tyson's Corner to become exactly what the plan for it is. We're going to need a lot of urban living demand to put 100,000 people in Tyson's Corner. But if and when we do, it's going to be amazing.

[Carlingtonian]

I can't believe TysonsEngineer is not weighing in yet. Or BrooklynBornDad. (Is he even still on this forum?)