How Was U Street Back in The 70s and 80s? (apartment, crime)
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.
I don't think you can really compare DC and Baltimore. DC has had steady job growth while Baltimore's industrial base has faltered. DC started becoming popular in the late 1990's and the trend accelerated throughout the 2000's. I think this was attributable to four factors. (1) First, a general trend toward urban living among the young and educated, who were coming to DC (as they always had) to take government, non-profit, and advocacy jobs. (2) Second, the wrecking of the Maryland and Virginia suburbs by overbuilding and traffic congestion, making the 'burbs somewhat less desirable. (3) Third , DC still had fantastic Victorian/pre-war housing stock. Since DC was always a "white collar" city, the quality of row houses in the city is much nicer than typical Baltimore or Philadelphia examples. Finally (4) DC has always had a substantial gay population, and the gay community was instrumental in making neighborhoods like Dupont and Logan liveable and pleasant (including establishing the sort of cafes, restaurants, and bookstores that attracted investment). Basically, by the late-1990's, DC real estate was decidedly undervalued compared to other East-coast cities like Boston or New York, given the quality of life and housing stock.
I have to admit that I cringe when I read a phrase like "DC started becoming popular in the late 1990s." It sounds a bit like a version of events designed to lavish praise on people who moved to the city at a particular period of time. When I read something like this, I understand why, on other threads, some posters complain about gentrification. It's not that they are against change per se, but the idea that modern history began when a certain group of people moved into a city can rankle. It's like the gays moving into Logan are right up there with the pilgrims at Plymouth Rock or something. But maybe you just mean that the late 90s was when the DC population started to increase again after a long slide.
#1 - The young and educated coming to DC have tended to sette in DC and the close-in suburbs for a long time. What's changed is how many well-educated, well-paid types have landed jobs in this area and where they are prepared to live within the District and the close-in suburbs. But, if you checked the staff directory for a DC professional firm in the mid-80s, you'd find that the new recruits were living in DC, Silver Spring, Bethesda, Arlington and Alexandria, not Gaithersburg or Reston.
#2 - I'd say that's inartfully phrased. Until the last year or so (and certainly during the decade from 2000 to 2010), the growth in the area's suburban jurisdictions, in absolute numbers, continued to be greater than that in DC proper. The suburbs aren't "wrecked," but low-density development makes commuting more challenging and there's a limit as to the number of people you can fit in jurisdictions with restrictive zoning, if those jurisdictions are still sorting out how much high-density development they are prepared to embrace.
#3 - I'm not sure if you're saying that the quality of the residential construction in DC is superior to that in Baltimore or Philadelphia, or just the condition of the housing as of the late 1990s. It's definitely the case that DC doesn't have the blocks of bombed-out rowhouses that you can find in West Baltimore or North Philadelphia, but a lot of that housing originally was pretty nice. When people think about this, maybe they should stop a moment and give thanks to the many families - often AA - who worked hard for generations and took care of so many of DC's rowhouse neighborhoods, while similar areas in other cities declined.
#4 - If Richard Florida says gays are a harbinger of the creative class, it must be true. But it wasn't just the gay foot soldiers of gentrification who've made DC neighborhoods safe, and their pads cushy, for today's bar-crawling lobbyists in their 20s and 30s. In the 1980s and 1990s, for example, there were a lot of other people who renovated DC properties in fits and starts, if only to move out when the public schools failed to improve and the District with Marion Barry as mayor became close to intolerable for many. When Anthony Williams took over, a lot of people breathed a big sigh of relief.
[quote=JEB77;25510737]"I have to admit that I cringe when I read a phrase like "DC started becoming popular in the late 1990s." It sounds a bit like a version of events designed to lavish praise on people who moved to the city at a particular period of time. When I read something like this, I understand why, on other threads, some posters complain about gentrification. It's not that they are against change per se, but the idea that modern history began when a certain group of people moved into a city can rankle. It's like the gays moving into Logan are right up there with the pilgrims at Plymouth Rock or something. But maybe you just mean that the late 90s was when the DC population started to increase again after a long slide."
X became popular in Year Y does not imply that no was interested in X before year Y, its a statement about quantities (and arguably about impact) else many a joke about hipsters would be without point.
"#1 - The young and educated coming to DC have tended to sette in DC and the close-in suburbs for a long time. What's changed is how many well-educated, well-paid types have landed jobs in this area and where they are prepared to live within the District and the close-in suburbs. But, if you checked the staff directory for a DC professional firm in the mid-80s, you'd find that the new recruits were living in DC, Silver Spring, Bethesda, Arlington and Alexandria, not Gaithersburg or Reston."
In the 1980s perhaps, and certainly in the 1970s, those young folks were moving to then new apt complexes in those close in suburbs that were often low rises, and when hi rises, were often not particularly oriented to the needs of pedestrians. So if this is an argument about change in lifestyles, I dont think its on point. If its about the district as such, then the fact that more are locating in the district would appear to be significant.
"#2 - I'd say that's inartfully phrased. Until the last year or so (and certainly during the decade from 2000 to 2010), the growth in the area's suburban jurisdictions, in absolute numbers, continued to be greater than that in DC proper. The suburbs aren't "wrecked," but low-density development makes commuting more challenging and there's a limit as to the number of people you can fit in jurisdictions with restrictive zoning, if those jurisdictions are still sorting out how much high-density development they are prepared to embrace. "
No suburban jurisdiction in metro DC has entered the rumored "suburban death spiral" though PG teeters. FFX and MoCo are struggling with their built out status, as you state in different words. PWC seems to have benefited the most from BRAC, and perhaps as an alternative to PG, as well as benefiting from still having vacant land for new houses. To the extent that commute cost and time is expected by some to over come the inducement of vacant land, thats probably offset by the DoD moves, which have shortened those commutes. Also the (wise) creation/expansion of VRE. Right now VDOT is looking at expansion on I95 (supposed to pay for itself with HOT lanes) and a western bypass (no idea how that is to be financed) I guess both will be important for PWC to continue growing.
"3 - I'm not sure if you're saying that the quality of the residential construction in DC is superior to that in Baltimore or Philadelphia, or just the condition of the housing as of the late 1990s. It's definitely the case that DC doesn't have the blocks of bombed-out rowhouses that you can find in West Baltimore or North Philadelphia, but a lot of that housing originally was pretty nice. When people think about this, maybe they should stop a moment and give thanks to the many families - often AA - who worked hard for generations and took care of so many of DC's rowhouse neighborhoods, while similar areas in other cities declined."
There are some nice revived areas in Baltimore - and there have been bombed out areas in DC (some been torn down).
"4 - If Richard Florida says gays are a harbinger of the creative class, it must be true. "
I noticed that before Id heard of Richard Florida. Its really not that shocking when you think about it.
X became popular in Year Y does not imply that no was interested in X before year Y, its a statement about quantities (and arguably about impact) else many a joke about hipsters would be without point.
Yes, but a statement that "X started to become popular in Year Y" could be read that X was, widely speaking, unpopular before Year Y (and not simply, in this case, that there was a net outflow of residents until the late 90s or shortly thereafter). But, as I said before you posted, that may be what the other poster really had in mind.
I know you have a soft spot for Baltimore, as do I (earliest memory is sitting in Memorial Stadium hearing some guy yell out Luis Aparicio's name), but the desolate areas of Baltimore row-house territory cover a much wider swatch of the city than can be said of any parts of DC. This really isn't susceptible to debate.
On the hipster front, I did see a guy with a fedora on 14th Street yesterday, but he really just looked like a pale Hill staffer who'd seen too many episodes of White Collar. Michael Jordan can do bald, and Matt Bomer can pull off a fedora, but your typical DC white guy on U Street can't do either.
Most of DC was devastated by riots, urban decay and drug problems beginning in the 60s. Dupont Circle was horrible in the 70s-80s, and is now one of the most desirable places to live in the City. Much of the city has changed in a similar fashion. Some places are further along than others, but it's all on an upward trend. U Street was not somewhere you wanted to be during that time frame.
I have lived in the area 60 years, and worked downtown daily for 33 years. I don't recall Dupont Circle ever being "horrible" - maybe you're thinking of Logan Circle instead. I do recall Dupont Circle being known for counter-culture, including the Gay bookstore, the Scientology headquarters and proselytizers, and the home of numerous nonprofit group offices such as Ralph Nader's.
As for U Street, I recall that one major catalyst that started its improvement. was the bold decision of D.C. government in the mid-1980s to build the Reeves Center D.C. govt. office building at 14th & U, a neighborhood which at that time was teeming constantly with derelicts and had one of the highest crimes rates in the city. About the same time, 2 or 3 theater companies opened stages on 14th street, drawing arts patrons to the area.
#1 - The young and educated coming to DC have tended to sette in DC and the close-in suburbs for a long time. What's changed is how many well-educated, well-paid types have landed jobs in this area and where they are prepared to live within the District and the close-in suburbs. But, if you checked the staff directory for a DC professional firm in the mid-80s, you'd find that the new recruits were living in DC, Silver Spring, Bethesda, Arlington and Alexandria, not Gaithersburg or Reston.
.
Very true. DC has never not been a Mecca of sorts for young Black professionals, it's just where they had and/or chose to live changed over time. I have an older relative who graduated from law school during the 70s and after graduation lived in Southwest, in that co-op community with arched rooftops. For its time, it was ultra-hip, mod living. Almost all of her friends lived on Upper 16th Street, Silver Spring, Adams Morgan/Mt. Pleasant/Cleveland Park and older suburbs in PG county like College Park and New Carollton. Their white friends and counterparts had rules about DC (only "West of the Park" or "West of 16th Street"), but many of them lived in the city as well.
My point was simply that there seems to be a somewhat different mindset among "Generation Y" than earlier generations. There is more enthusiasm for walkable, diverse, urban neighborhoods today than I remember from the 1970s or 1980s. So I think we agree. Many young people have always flocked cities. What's different today is that this migration is becoming the norm rather than the exception, and young people are moving to a broader range of neighborhoods.
As far as the issue of DC's popularity... it's simply a fact that DC began to stop loosing population in the 1990's, and has since gained population due to in-migration. So, by that definition, DC has become a more popular destination. That isn't to say that DC had no history before the 1990's, or that the people living here before the 1990's were less important or valuable.
I have lived in the area 60 years, and worked downtown daily for 33 years. I don't recall Dupont Circle ever being "horrible" - maybe you're thinking of Logan Circle instead. I do recall Dupont Circle being known for counter-culture, including the Gay bookstore, the Scientology headquarters and proselytizers, and the home of numerous nonprofit group offices such as Ralph Nader's.
As for U Street, I recall that one major catalyst that started its improvement. was the bold decision of D.C. government in the mid-1980s to build the Reeves Center D.C. govt. office building at 14th & U, a neighborhood which at that time was teeming constantly with derelicts and had one of the highest crimes rates in the city. About the same time, 2 or 3 theater companies opened stages on 14th street, drawing arts patrons to the area.
The subway stop had a lot more to do with U street revival. The DC government building didn't realistically have a material economic impact.
My point was simply that there seems to be a somewhat different mindset among "Generation Y" than earlier generations. There is more enthusiasm for walkable, diverse, urban neighborhoods today than I remember from the 1970s or 1980s. So I think we agree. Many young people have always flocked cities. What's different today is that this migration is becoming the norm rather than the exception, and young people are moving to a broader range of neighborhoods.
I think the different assumption may be the expectation that one can live in a wider range of urban neighborhoods that are both affordable and relatively safe, coupled with the understanding that certain suburban areas may be no more or less safe than some urban areas today. As to whether migration to cities and close-in suburbs is more the norm today than in the 70s and 80s among those in their 20s and early 30s, we probably need more data. There are more jobs in ring suburbs today than there were 35 years ago, and people generally prefer to be near their place of employment. In both absolute and percentage terms, you might well find more people in that age cohort living further from the urban center today than in the 70s and 80s, albeit with a greater sense of angst (due to social media and the Internet) that the fun stuff may be happening somewhere else. In the opposite direction, people tended to marry earlier and move to the suburbs sooner 35 years ago, or perhaps feel that doing something like buying a townhouse in Fair Lakes, even as a single person, was a way to demonstrate one's maturity to the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jm67
As far as the issue of DC's popularity... it's simply a fact that DC began to stop loosing population in the 1990's, and has since gained population due to in-migration. So, by that definition, DC has become a more popular destination. That isn't to say that DC had no history before the 1990's, or that the people living here before the 1990's were less important or valuable.
Agreed. Sometimes I think DC really needs its own Studs Terkel (if that name rings a bell) to interview more people - both black and white - who lived through DC in the 60s and later decades, just to give others more perspective on the city's recent history. Soon, there won't be anyone left who remembers when Morton's was a department store, and not just a steak house for those with expense accounts.
a lot of young people don't mind living with roommates, so it makes
living in the inner city and walking to work more affordable. that's
basically it, or you wouldn't see so much gentrification. it would
still be the hood.
that alone gives landlords an incentive to fix things up and jack up
the rent 4 or 5-fold.
I believe transportation costs are one factor with the city appeal among 20-somethings and early 30-somethings today. Just look at gasoline prices. When I was in my early 20s during the mid 1990s, gasoline was like $1.09 per gallon on average--some gas stations were only charging 89 cents per gallon. People my age during the 1990s were buying SUVs, Jeep Wranglers or refurbing muscle cars from the 1970s because gasoline costs were nothing. Today, the average gas price is $3.50 per gallon in the DC area. There's no doubt that rising fuel prices has impacted consumer habits among 20-somethings. Get a hybrid, get a SmartCar or don't get anything at all.
Living farther out in the burbs didn't cost as much 20 or 30 years ago when you factor public transportation. WMATA train fares were far more reasonable 20 years ago for those commuters traveling from the farthest destinations. I remember circa 1994-95 when my one-way fare from Vienna metro station to Metro Center in DC was something like $2.50 (at rush hour fare). Today, it's almost $5.30 to travel downtown during rush hour. That's insane. Costs are going up for public transit and this penalizes people who live in the suburbs.
So if you are a financially struggling 20-something today, you don't want to deal with the high gasoline prices and outrageous WMATA fares. In fact, I think Generation Y people have a lower car ownership rate than Xers and certainly the Baby Boomers. I can't tell you how many young people living in the city do NOT have a car. It's a lot!
In some cases, the higher rents in DC wipe out the difference in commuting costs. But I think most younger professionals want to get home at a reasonable hour at night and have plenty of time for exercise, happy hours, dining out, movies or whatever. The rent is worth the price for a better work/life balance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jm67
My point was simply that there seems to be a somewhat different mindset among "Generation Y" than earlier generations. There is more enthusiasm for walkable, diverse, urban neighborhoods today than I remember from the 1970s or 1980s. So I think we agree. Many young people have always flocked cities. What's different today is that this migration is becoming the norm rather than the exception, and young people are moving to a broader range of neighborhoods.
As far as the issue of DC's popularity... it's simply a fact that DC began to stop loosing population in the 1990's, and has since gained population due to in-migration. So, by that definition, DC has become a more popular destination. That isn't to say that DC had no history before the 1990's, or that the people living here before the 1990's were less important or valuable.
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.
