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.
How about the fact that both Arlington County and the City of Alexandria grew at a more rapid pace between 2000 and 2010 than DC did (I'm sure Silver Spring is the same, but the Census has only released data at the county level)? I agree with you that people are placing an increased value on living somewhere walkable and more urban, even with higher prices and smaller living units, but I'm curious if you think that the discrepancy in growth rates between DC and its "urban suburbs" is significant.
I don't place a lot of stake in the difference between DC and the more urbanized areas of Arlington and Alexandria. I'm not an only-in-DC elitist type who thinks that things become white picket fence suburban blandness once you cross the river; I think quite a few people view Arlington and Alexandria as somewhat interchangeable with much of DC. (No, there's no equivalent to H Street or U Street in Arlington, but it's at least as "urban" as a Cleveland Park or Tenleytown.) Ditto Bethesda and Silver Spring--I look at the close-in, urbanized suburbs as basically core extensions of DC itself. But that's just my opinion--I'm sure there are a lot of DC residents who would disagree with me.
I'm probably not making myself clear, so please forgive me.
I don't doubt for a second that people find DC desirable, or at least more desirable than they did 20 years ago. I am simply taking issue with the notion that the so-called "American Dream" (defined as the Leave it to Beaver, Pleasantville, Boy Meets World, Corey, Sean, Eric and Topanga with Mr. Feeny on the other side of the fence ideal) has fundamentally changed.
Yes, young people are moving into urban areas. But they are also moving out of urban areas as they age. They could stay, but they usually decide not to because they value safety, education, or living space more than they do jumbo slice pizza. If we're going to loudly proclaim that the "American Dream" has changed, then I want to see data showing that the same type of families that abandoned cities in the 50s and 60s are moving back into them.
Yet we don't see that. We see cities like the District being populated by young people and older and/or childless couples. And there aren't enough Yuppies and Boomers to drive DC's population back up to where it was in 1950. Because families' focus will be on the burbs for the forseeable future, that is where the growth will be, and we will not come close to reversing the trend that began nearly half a century ago.
The only argument I'm hearing is "Just wait and see, BajanYankee. Those same 29-year olds who bought condos in Chinatown will stay in the city and send their kids to the public schools, thereby improving the quality of DCPS and making the city even more attractive to other like-minded SWPL families." This is not evidence that the "American Dream" has changed. It's just people speculating (wishfully thinking/praying/hoping) that these people will stay when historically they never have. Manhattan and DC have been revolving doors for quite some time now. The only difference is that more people are going through those doors than before.
I honestly don't know where it's all headed either, although I am inclined to believe that as more people move into the District, regardless of age, more will stay. You didn't used to see baby strollers in Manhattan either, and now they're everywhere. I kind of think DC is on a similar path.
But who knows. I know Mr. and Mrs. 14thandyou would very much like to remain in the city, with or without children. But maybe in 5-10 years our tastes will have changed?
If the old put-down of DC was that it is "Hollywood for ugly people," maybe the new line will be that DC is "San Francisco for boring ones."
San Francisco seems to be populated primarily by three types of people these days:
1) Affluent yuppies
2) Fruit-and-granola types
3) Homeless people
I think there are probably more than a handful of Bay Area-lifers who would argue that most of the interesting, creative-class folk have migrated across the bay to Oakland.
Trust me, the point does not escape me. Derivatives are useful when trying to figure out the distance required for a car to stop. Not so useful when trying to predict population trends. One huge assumption that you both make is that DC's growth will continue at the same rate notwithstanding very real countervailing factors like cost of living. This will undoubtedly be the biggest handicap for the District, and many other cities, to overcome.
In 1950, DC was somethiing like this:
DC (city proper): 800,000; DC Metro: 1.5 million (guesstimate)
In 1980, it was something like this:
DC: 630,000; DC Metro: 3 million
In 2000, it was something like:
DC: 570,000; DC Metro: 4.5 million
Today, it's more like this:
DC: 600,000; DC Metro: 5 million
This trend is playing out all over America as the population of suburbia and exurbia continue to grow and city populations fall, remain stagnant, or barely grow at all. That DC added 28,000 people is not all that significant considering that the population growth throughout the entire region is booming. I mean, how could you look at these FACTS and say that "the new age of urbanization has arrived" when millions across the country are moving to places more like Annandale than Ballston? I mean, seriously, if the exurbs are growing at a wildfire pace, then what impact does that have on your theory?
That's what makes it even more interesting. Even our supposedly more progressive neighbors to the north say they value density less when children are involved. If people are concerned about raising their kids in Toronto, then what hope is there for Philadelphia?
Our values are often best reflected in the choices we make. For example, I would love to have a 5'7 girlfriend with long hair and perfect C-cups. But when push comes to shove, I would choose a girl who had the height and hair but with A-cups over a shorter girl with shorter hair and perfect C-cups. We can't have it all, so we generally choose that which matters to us most. Most people could choose to stuff their family into a one-bedroom apartment to live the city life if they really wanted to, but the fact that they're not doing that shows what they truly value.
Of course, we'd all love to have the Huxtable brownstone in a diverse neighborhood with good schools and a subway stop and grocery store two blocks away. But that's not realistic for most people. Whether you choose to live in a neighborhood for the better schools, or you choose to live in a neighborhood because of the public transportation options, both are decisions based on practical considerations.
You continue to project a very limited view of urban - linking crazy pizza-slice party scenes in and then extrapolating that everybody doesn't want that. Well, duh.
You try to cite the decline in urban populations nationwide as a sign that you're right, when in fact the urban cores of every major city have increased in population, even if the overall city declined. Also the effort to rebuild suburbs as cities.
You say that wanting sidewalks and transit is something universal, not recognizing the dramatic shift in values to demand that development style in recent decades that was not there 30 years ago. Living as far from transit and sidewalks used to be the norm for a successful life. Young people and empty nesters used to not move to urban areas. This shift has changed that. It's so ubiquitous that you see it as normal. It was not 15 years ago. The fact that people are choosing that lifestyle in every phase of their life that it's not too impractical shows where their desire lies, even if it's not always achievable.
You continue to project a very limited view of urban - linking crazy pizza-slice party scenes in and then extrapolating that everybody doesn't want that. Well, duh.
You try to cite the decline in urban populations nationwide as a sign that you're right, when in fact the urban cores of every major city have increased in population, even if the overall city declined. Also the effort to rebuild suburbs as cities.
You say that wanting sidewalks and transit is something universal, not recognizing the dramatic shift in values to demand that development style in recent decades that was not there 30 years ago. Living as far from transit and sidewalks used to be the norm for a successful life. Young people and empty nesters used to not move to urban areas. This shift has changed that. It's so ubiquitous that you see it as normal. It was not 15 years ago. The fact that people are choosing that lifestyle in every phase of their life that it's not too impractical shows where their desire lies, even if it's not always achievable.
While I recognize that DC's finally starting to gain population is welcome news to many, I'm not sure that growth in an urban downtown area, accompanied by (1) overall loss of a city's population and/or (2) greater growth in the suburbs, would deserve a great deal of attention, much less announce some major shift in housing priorities or values among the general population.
But does that even describe what's actually happened across-the-board; the attached seems to suggest otherwise (I assume you have some other study or report in mind):
The broader issue I have with your latest post, however, is the repeated suggestion that no one wanted to live in the cities 15-25 years ago or gave a moment's thought to living anywhere else but a car-dependent suburb. I don't know where you got that idea. It seems like such a straw-man argument to me, although I guess it helps to avoid dealing with the fact that there have long been a lot of young people who moved to DC and other cities, stayed for a while, and then left for what they believed were, figuratively if not literally, greener pastures.
Finally, as I've noted before, I think the suggestion that the thrust of the recent efforts to redevelop suburbs is to "rebuild suburbs as cities" is questionable. The model for a lot suburban redevelopment efforts seems to be the street-car suburbs of the past, not the central cities.
You continue to project a very limited view of urban - linking crazy pizza-slice party scenes in and then extrapolating that everybody doesn't want that. Well, duh.
Au contraire. You were one of the main ones pointing to select developments such as Ballston as evidence of a "value shift." I just asked for the data, which you still have not posted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly
You try to cite the decline in urban populations nationwide as a sign that you're right, when in fact the urban cores of every major city have increased in population, even if the overall city declined. Also the effort to rebuild suburbs as cities.
What is defined as the "urban core?" Moreover, where is your data?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly
Living as far from transit and sidewalks used to be the norm for a successful life.
Where are you getting this from? This is a completely unfounded statement. People move to suburbs for a variety of reasons, but I doubt many will say that one of them was to move as far away from public transit as possible. All things equal, nearly all people prefer to live closer rather than farther from public transit. This even goes for suburban dwellers.
Now the perception of public transit and the problems it could "potentially" bring is another issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly
Young people and empty nesters used to not move to urban areas.
Young people have preferred the Big City Life for a long, long time. The only difference now is that we have a much, much larger class of young, white-collar professionals than we had 30 years ago. Law school enrollment has ballooned. More kids are going to grad school. And there are more paper-pushing jobs in the Big City that require fancy degrees than there were 30 years ago. Had these same kids been born in 1946 rather than 1986, they'd probably be working some much crappier job with lower wages in a much less glamorous city. But because of inflated law/grad/b-school school enrollment, and the proliferation of jobs in worthless fields such as PR, more young people get a taste of the life that used to be reserved exclusively to the Jay Gatsbys of the world.
That young people move to giant urban dormitories is nothing new. What would be shocking is data showing the 35-45 year old cohort staying in the city.
While I recognize that DC's finally starting to gain population is welcome news to many, I'm not sure that growth in an urban downtown area, accompanied by (1) overall loss of a city's population and/or (2) greater growth in the suburbs, would deserve a great deal of attention, much less announce some major shift in housing priorities or values among the general population.
But does that even describe what's actually happened across-the-board; the attached seems to suggest otherwise (I assume you have some other study or report in mind):
The broader issue I have with your latest post, however, is the repeated suggestion that no one wanted to live in the cities 15-25 years ago or gave a moment's thought to living anywhere else but a car-dependent suburb. I don't know where you got that idea. It seems like such a straw-man argument to me, although I guess it helps to avoid dealing with the fact that there have long been a lot of young people who moved to DC and other cities, stayed for a while, and then left for what they believed were, figuratively if not literally, greener pastures.
Finally, as I've noted before, I think the suggestion that the thrust of the recent efforts to redevelop suburbs is to "rebuild suburbs as cities" is questionable. The model for a lot suburban redevelopment efforts seems to be the street-car suburbs of the past, not the central cities.
Damn you, Jeb77! There you go again with your citations to data and facts and fancy charts. Why can't you just go with your gut? And if your gut tells you that the American Dream hasn't changed, then it must be true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly
It's so ubiquitous that you see it as normal. It was not 15 years ago. The fact that people are choosing that lifestyle in every phase of their life that it's not too impractical shows where their desire lies, even if it's not always achievable.
Interesting thing about the Chicago map is that the greatest exodus came from Chicago's south and west sides, mainly from African-Americans fleeing the worst neighborhoods in the city to more stable suburban enclaves. Chicago's north side--where the majority of its denser neighborhoods are located--is mostly gray (no change) mixed in with pockets of blue (net influx).
i'd be curious to see some similar historical maps from the 60s, 70s and 80s. My guess is that the color red would be much more pervasive across many of these cities.
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.
