Do you see DC becoming the next NYC? (Washington: fit in, big house)
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.
DC became what it is today based on what was done back in the Clinton Admin. Consolidate Govt Functions into the capital. The hope was for greater synergy and lessor cost. The result was a hugely subsidized economy which runs at EXTREME excess. DC in it success is in someways a constant reminder of this failed experiment. I like DC and resided in the city for a number of years but the success of DC has been most driven by the backs of every American taxpayer and IMHO a failed experiment. Higher costs and lower synergies. I say cut the Fed and diversify the govt outside of the beltway (or extended beltway as it is today). The last 20 years have been worse for everyplace in America with the exception of DC, enough is enough...
Good post, and they are busy retiring workers and moving jobs out of DC. DC doesn't really have any economy outside of Fed backed so the real question should be what kind of contraction is DC facing as we move into a consolidated economy.
Do more companies move in and take up whitespace or does DC lose population?
DC became what it is today based on what was done back in the Clinton Admin. Consolidate Govt Functions into the capital. The hope was for greater synergy and lessor cost. The result was a hugely subsidized economy which runs at EXTREME excess. DC in it success is in someways a constant reminder of this failed experiment. I like DC and resided in the city for a number of years but the success of DC has been most driven by the backs of every American taxpayer and IMHO a failed experiment. Higher costs and lower synergies. I say cut the Fed and diversify the govt outside of the beltway (or extended beltway as it is today). The last 20 years have been worse for everyplace in America with the exception of DC, enough is enough...
Facts don't support your argument. 15% of the feds are in the DC area. 85% are around the country and the world.
Many other parts of the country have thrived over the past 20 years - Houston, Dallas and Austin in Texas, Atlanta and Birmingham in the south, Phoenix and Las Vegas until 2007, Seattle, San Francisco, Boston, and Silicon Valley with technology; Minnesota and Denver in the plains. This recession only happened 4 years ago. Until then, much of the country was thriving.
I wasn't saying shopping isn't part of the cultural amenities. I was saying that there's nothing unique about Tysons that you couldn't find outside Indianapolis. In contrast, Logan Circle, Dupont, Capitol Hill, and (decreasingly) Georgetown offer unique amenities.
I don't think it's any secret that DC lost its mantle as the cultural / economic center of the region long ago as white flight and other cultural shifts drove much of the wealth out of the city.
The story now is how rapidly DC has reclaimed a foothold in the region, which is why people are even asking whether it could be "the next NYC", but it's certainly not the premiere shopping destination like Chicago or New York or Rodeo Drive possess. If Friendship Heights were downtown or even not split between MD and DC, we could possibly begin to make a comparision in the way that people suggest Chinatown is a tiny Times Square.
It's totally clueless to suggest that the retail at Tysons, when you include the Tysons Galleria and Fairfax Square, is similar to what you'd find outside Indianopolis. That's not the case at all. There are many stores in the Tysons area that don't have locations in the Indianopolis or other metropolitan areas. The observation regarding Friendship Heights, however, is appropriately tentative. You could string all the stores in both the Maryland and DC portions of Friendship Heights together and they still wouldn't compare to Fifth/Madison, North Michigan or Rodeo Drive.
It's totally clueless to suggest that the retail at Tysons, when you include the Tysons Galleria and Fairfax Square, is similar to what you'd find outside Indianopolis. That's not the case at all. There are many stores in the Tysons area that don't have locations in the Indianopolis or other metropolitan areas. The observation regarding Friendship Heights, however, is appropriately tentative. You could string all the stores in both the Maryland and DC portions of Friendship Heights together and they still wouldn't compare to Fifth/Madison, North Michigan or Rodeo Drive.
I'm not sure why you're so passionate in your belief that DC's suburbs are unique, but besides volume there's little unique about Tysons' malls. Just a quick search of "upscale mall" and [random / depressed city name] turns back easy results that show the high end stores are in every major market and, generally speaking, whatever's not at those particular malls is at more mid-range malls in each area (they just might not be all in the same location):
I currently live in NYC and have lived in the DC area in the past. When I visited DC just over the holiday in the past few weeks, it was alarming to me how UNLIKE New York, DC actually is. There simply is no comparison. It is truly like comparing apples and oranges.
I just came back from Boston! Great city! I will try to post pics later. Some things I notice. The Downtown area reminded me of NYC & Bmore (harbor). It was compact and crowded. I caught the green line to Back Bay which was cool with the all the shopping. I went to the Prudential Building. Some of their skyscrapers seemed out of place, especially the ones near BB!
BB reminded me of a mix of Dupont Circle and Georgetown. I went to Cambridge which reminded me of Arlington along Wilson Blvd between Courthouse and Clarendon. The Boston T was cool. I rode all of the lines. The Blue line from the airport uses third rail and overhead wires (Kid Philly is that a hybrid?) and goes to the burbs. DC's metro is much better IMO. The Silver line is a bus line? The Green line is wierd. In one of the stations, you can literally walk across the tracks to catch the train. The whole time I was there, I did not see any affluent looking black people.
Boston's parks are better than DC's because they are more integrated into the city. Boston's nightlife was blah!
Facts don't support your argument. 15% of the feds are in the DC area. 85% are around the country and the world.
Many other parts of the country have thrived over the past 20 years - Houston, Dallas and Austin in Texas, Atlanta and Birmingham in the south, Phoenix and Las Vegas until 2007, Seattle, San Francisco, Boston, and Silicon Valley with technology; Minnesota and Denver in the plains. This recession only happened 4 years ago. Until then, much of the country was thriving.
15% in the DC area and probably more than double that in direct bid contracted employees when compared to Fed employees (While technically not Fed employees, for all intents and purposes that is all they are). Yes areas have done well and also not so well. Point is the consolidation of the Govt was supposed to bring savings and synergies. It did neither; I would argue the animal is feeding itself at a much larger rate overall. Also DC has almost become a pay for play area in a sense. Nearly forced relocations of many defense and Intel cos to join in the fray.
DC has become a monster that feeds itself and prints money from everywhere else to pay for it. While as a percentage today less of the economy in DC is direct Govt related; the number of jobs in DC either employed directly by the Fed or direct contractors is the highest ever. DC did not grow because Marriott and the Discovery Channel moved to the area. It grows because of the Fed and cos like SAIC, Titan etc etc etc.
I am not wishing any ill will to DC but question one, how can this monster be sustained and two whether this consolidated experiement really benefits the country as whole (though not a simple answer either way)
Guess I went there on the NY DC comparison as the Govt spend has fueled the improvements in DC lately. But on the topic as a city, no I dont see it anywhere close. On a power because of the Govt DC is different that other cities it better compares to; but honestly as a city on feel and offerings it seems more similar to the Boston/Philly/SFs of the world than even remotely close to NYC
I just came back from Boston! Great city! I will try to post pics later. Some things I notice. The Downtown area reminded me of NYC & Bmore (harbor). It was compact and crowded. I caught the green line to Back Bay which was cool with the all the shopping. I went to the Prudential Building. Some of their skyscrapers seemed out of place, especially the ones near BB!
BB reminded me of a mix of Dupont Circle and Georgetown. I went to Cambridge which reminded me of Arlington along Wilson Blvd between Courthouse and Clarendon. The Boston T was cool. I rode all of the lines. The Blue line from the airport uses third rail and overhead wires (Kid Philly is that a hybrid?) and goes to the burbs. DC's metro is much better IMO. The Silver line is a bus line? The Green line is wierd. In one of the stations, you can literally walk across the tracks to catch the train. The whole time I was there, I did not see any affluent looking black people.
Boston's parks are better than DC's because they are more integrated into the city. Boston's nightlife was blah!
Ha glad you enjoyed Boston. My point on the Metro (like BART and to a lessor extent MARTA) is that it is hybrid and more modern than other cities transit and acts to provide services more similar to what two seperate types in other cities which use both regional rail and heavy rail to do similar things to what METRO does. Doing it with one system is likely better IMHO but I do not believe METRO to be truly all subway as it also serves the function of regional rail so when comparing cities like a Boston regional rail needs to be included with the subway (Actualy the Green Line even though liht rail also is similar in serving multi purposes so to speak). Hybrid by my meaning was the types of service it provides.
15% in the DC area and probably more than double that in direct bid contracted employees when compared to Fed employees (While technically not Fed employees, for all intents and purposes that is all they are).
The DC area does benefit disproportionately from federal employment and federal contracts, but I think that in general, people think we absorb a lot more than we actually do. Additionally, those contract dollars don't all stay in DC/MD/VA as varying degrees of labor, parts etc. are often sourced from elsewhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly
DC has become a monster that feeds itself and prints money from everywhere else to pay for it. While as a percentage today less of the economy in DC is direct Govt related; the number of jobs in DC either employed directly by the Fed or direct contractors is the highest ever. DC did not grow because Marriott and the Discovery Channel moved to the area. It grows because of the Fed and cos like SAIC, Titan etc etc etc.
It's inherent that any capital city is going to have a concentration of public employment, and it's going to be a foundation of the local economy to some degree. I'm not sure the discussion of where it's appropriate to draw the line is being fueled by a particularly informed public. Large national programs are what make up the majority of federal outlays. Personally, I don't see how you even cover the cost of our debt services by completely eviscerating DC federal employment, let alone focus on it as a central strategy for deficit reduction.
If there is a federal program that is not running well, is duplicative or outdated; then by all means reform or eliminate, and subsequently reduce federal employment.
Anyway, of the billions in development in my neighborhood (which has the most construction permits in DC) is predominantly private investment. That includes a half billion hotel that Marriott is building to serve our convention center. Certainly, DC would not be what it is today without the federal government, and we are underpinned by a somewhat stable federally employed population, but a majority of DC's growth isn't being footed by the American taxpayer.
Last edited by KStreetQB; 01-09-2012 at 11:28 AM..
The DC area does benefit disproportionately from federal employment and federal contracts, but I think that in general, people think we absorb a lot more than we actually do. Additionally, those contract dollars don't all stay in DC/MD/VA as varying degrees of labor, parts etc. are often sourced from elsewhere.
It's inherent that any capital city is going to have a concentration of public employment, and it's going to be a foundation of the local economy to some degree. I'm not sure the discussion of where it's appropriate to draw the line is being fueled by a particularly informed public. Large national programs are what make up the majority of federal outlays. Personally, I don't see how you even cover the cost of our debt services by completely eviscerating DC federal employment, let alone focus on it as a central strategy for deficit reduction.
If there is a federal program that is not running well, is duplicative or outdated; then by all means reform or eliminate, and subsequently reduce federal employment.
Anyway, of the billions in development in my neighborhood (which has the most construction permits in DC) is predominantly private investment. That includes a half billion hotel that Marriott is building to serve our convention center. Certainly, DC would not be what it is today without the federal government, and we are underpinned by a somewhat stable federally employed population, but a majority of DC's growth isn't being footed by the American taxpayer.
I actually think our thinking is not far off and I do not proclaim for the eradication of Federal employment and understand that a capital will always have a higher percentage of federal employees. I also agree with programs and services etc being cut .
On private funding, well yes, but you well know the federal influence on growth of govt is what IS making this possible (and yes whether direct or indirect expanded services and private contractors). Those buildings and jobs would not be in demand at the level without the HUGE increases in our govt (and extended govt). Also office sq footage is tremndously expensive in DC; IMHO unless a federal service ABSOLUTELY needs to be in the area it should be moved to cheaper digs; DC is far too expensive and this bubble of high cost has not been caused by private industry by any means; to believe otherwise is failing to see the HUGE pink elephant in the room. I also do believe the pendullum has significantly turned toward too large of Govt and too concetrated in DC. It is an animal that needs to continue to feed itself.
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.
Not by a long shot
