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 actually took all that into account. Yes, the Atlas District units. The average household size for apartments I'm using is 1.55 and with a pretty aggressive 95% unit occupancy rate which would be a considerable uptick from the 86.7% occupancy rate as of 2010 in this census tract. And, I'll say it again. Burnham Place and its 1,300 residential units are likely to not be done by 2020.
I created two scenarios (see attached maps).
Scenario 1.
Census Tract 106 is split in two, with the dividing line on the west side of the railroad tracks. The calculation is focused on the NoMa part of the split census tract.
Area in square miles - 0.1851
Population in 2020 - 5,448
3,700 units delivered by 2020
29,400 people per square mile in 2020
Scenario 2 (likely for 2020 Census).
Census Tract 106 is split in two, with the dividing line on the east side of the railroad tracks. The calculation is focused on the NoMa part of the split census tract.
Area in square miles - 0.2675
Population in 2020 - 5,448
3,700 units delivered by 2020
20,300 people per square mile in 2020
Scenario 1 yields 33,100 people per square mile at full build-out with 4,170 units by 2030. Scenario 2 yields 30,100 people per square mile at full build-out with 5,470 units by 2030.
The dense Logan Circle census tract with 67,000 people per square as of 2010 is nearly all residential. The NoMa census tract has/will have large blocks of office space and hotel space which kills its potential resident population density. Just look at how much space the ATF building takes up in the census tract. And, look how much space the train tracks take up. And, the office portion of Constitution Square. And, JBG's office portion of their future development along New York Ave and N St. Look at the big gap the Fed Ex distribution center creates between Trilogy NoMa and the rest of NoMa. And, the Sirius XM building and 64 Florida Ave NE building will create a huge gap between 50 Florida Ave and the rest of NoMa. And, look south of K Street NE, nothing but office space.
Look west into Census Tract 47.01 and 47.02. Residential development will be more prominent there and hence will be more dense. And yes, I agree there is potential for more residential development in NoMa.
NOMA at full build out will have 10,053 housing units. Did you take into account 2 and 3 bedroom units? Have you seen the development map? How about Atlas/H Street District development? All these area's will play a major roll in the census tract designation. What about these below:
NOMA at full build out will have 10,053 housing units. Did you take into account 2 and 3 bedroom units? Have you seen the development map? How about Atlas/H Street District development? All these area's will play a major roll in the census tract designation. What about these below:
When I split census tract 106 into two parts, it cut-out the remaining portion of the already built/future housing units in tract 106 into the other newly created tract. That is why Scenario 2 has a full build-out of 5,470 units. The remaining housing units that would, together with the 5,470, add to 10,000 total units are now found in the other four tracts that encompass NoMa.
Yes, I've taken into account the NW1 and Union Market developments. I do appreciate the dialog about this subject.
The NoMa BID boundary encompasses 4 distinct census tracts. That is what the 10,000 total units is based on, not just in one of them. The geographic separation of housing units in NoMa is what kills the continuity of residential density across the entirety of NoMa's census tracts (caused by the train tracks, large office and hotel blocks, government properties, and distribution centers). Even with 10,053 units at full build-out, the residential population density will not reach 80,000 people per square mile. That was your original statement. And, I've gone out of my way to make it clear that the numbers don't add up to that. It may reach half that though - in 20 to 30 years. And, that's admirable in and of itself and remarkable growth from what it once was.
It would definitely be nice for DC to have a 80,000+ people per square mile census tract in its future, but the promise of that is greater in other areas in the near term (20 years), like Logan Circle and further down the road - Mount Vernon Triangle. And, I definitely think DC will indeed reach that level in the near term. It just won't be in NoMa.
The future for NoMa is bright. You and I can both agree on that. I just don't find it valuable to be overly optimistic in this case, especially when NoMa already has/will have so much office space and hotel space that will break-up the continuity of the residential population density.
Last edited by revitalizer; 01-20-2014 at 11:20 PM..
When I split census tract 106 into two parts, it cut-out the remaining portion of the already built/future housing units in tract 106 into the other newly created tract. That is why Scenario 2 has a full build-out of 5,470 units. The remaining housing units that would, together with the 5,470, add to 10,000 total units are now found in the other four tracts that encompass NoMa.
Yes, I've taken into account the NW1 and Union Market developments. I do appreciate the dialog about this subject.
The NoMa BID boundary encompasses 4 distinct census tracts. That is what the 10,000 total units is based on, not just in one of them. The geographic separation of housing units in NoMa is what kills the continuity of residential density across the entirety of NoMa's census tracts (caused by the train tracks, large office and hotel blocks, government properties, and distribution centers). Even with 10,053 units at full build-out, the residential population density will not reach 80,000 people per square mile. That was your original statement. And, I've gone out of my way to make it clear that the numbers don't add up to that. It may reach half that though - in 20 to 30 years. And, that's admirable in and of itself and remarkable growth from what it once was.
It would definitely be nice for DC to have a 80,000+ people per square mile census tract in its future, but the promise of that is greater in other areas in the near term (20 years), like Logan Circle and further down the road - Mount Vernon Triangle. And, I definitely think DC will indeed reach that level in the near term. It just won't be in NoMa.
The future for NoMa is bright. You and I can both agree on that. I just don't find it valuable to be overly optimistic in this case, especially when NoMa already has/will have so much office space and hotel space that will break-up the continuity of the residential population density.
How did you draw the lines? How do you know how the lines will be drawn? There will be more people living in NOMA in a much smaller area than the Logan Circle tract. The population between 2nd Street and North Capitol in 2009 when the census was taken was zero people. All 3,933 people in census tract 106 lived outside of NOMA east of 2nd street.
See below, there will be over 6,000 people living in this area which is about 2/3 the size of the Logan Circle Tract. The buildings in NOMA are much larger than Logan Circle: https://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=N...p=2&sz=18&z=17
Just an FYI....I know personally that there are about 1,000 people living in First and M in NOMA which is a 469 unit building. You can go ask the leasing office if you want to verify. Every one bedroom virtually has two people. The average household size is very different compared to the rest of the city. It's much younger and people have roomates be they girlfriends/boyfriends, husbands/wives, or just friends. Also, many people have babies in one bedrooms. Shoot, John Wall from the Wizards has like 7 people living in his 3 bedroom apartment. By the way, there wasn't anything built in 2009 when the census was done so there were basically zero residents in NOMA the last census. All 3,933 people in census tract 106 came from the other side of the train tracks east of 2nd street.
Last edited by MDAllstar; 01-21-2014 at 06:04 AM..
When I split census tract 106 into two parts, it cut-out the remaining portion of the already built/future housing units in tract 106 into the other newly created tract. That is why Scenario 2 has a full build-out of 5,470 units. The remaining housing units that would, together with the 5,470, add to 10,000 total units are now found in the other four tracts that encompass NoMa.
Yes, I've taken into account the NW1 and Union Market developments. I do appreciate the dialog about this subject.
The NoMa BID boundary encompasses 4 distinct census tracts. That is what the 10,000 total units is based on, not just in one of them. The geographic separation of housing units in NoMa is what kills the continuity of residential density across the entirety of NoMa's census tracts (caused by the train tracks, large office and hotel blocks, government properties, and distribution centers). Even with 10,053 units at full build-out, the residential population density will not reach 80,000 people per square mile. That was your original statement. And, I've gone out of my way to make it clear that the numbers don't add up to that. It may reach half that though - in 20 to 30 years. And, that's admirable in and of itself and remarkable growth from what it once was.
It would definitely be nice for DC to have a 80,000+ people per square mile census tract in its future, but the promise of that is greater in other areas in the near term (20 years), like Logan Circle and further down the road - Mount Vernon Triangle. And, I definitely think DC will indeed reach that level in the near term. It just won't be in NoMa.
The future for NoMa is bright. You and I can both agree on that. I just don't find it valuable to be overly optimistic in this case, especially when NoMa already has/will have so much office space and hotel space that will break-up the continuity of the residential population density.
Also, this area below will have more housing units per square mile than any area in all of D.C. proper. There is no where in D.C. with buildings as tall or large as the buildings in NOMA. The area below will have 4,117 housing units by 2020 and it's about the same size as the Logan Circle tract.
Further more, this area below will have 6,603 housing units not even counting planned office buildings that will be converted to residential which is going to happen all over the city because the demand for office will not return. D.C. has too much office space for a city this size. Can you name one area anywhere in the city with that amount of housing units in a similar size area?
I think you're overestimating a bit. I already foresaw adding NoMa to my high-density residential map eventually, but my thinking is it won't be so quick as in 2020. I think full build out will take a bit longer than your overly-optimistic forecast. We'll have to agree to disagree on that.
I want to reiterate that NoMa is on the rise, and I'm all on board with that.
I think you're overestimating a bit. I already foresaw adding NoMa to my high-density residential map eventually, but my thinking is it won't be so quick as in 2020. I think full build out will take a bit longer than your overly-optimistic forecast. We'll have to agree to disagree on that.
I want to reiterate that NoMa is on the rise, and I'm all on board with that.
I'm done with this for now. See you in 2020.
But do you dispute that the area I highlighted will have more units per square mile than any other area in the city? The timing isn't the issue, it's the finished product I'm talking about. How many units are in the Logan Circle tract and how large is that area? What would a similar sized area in NOMA be at full buildout. Why are you getting frustrated? It's an academic discussion.
But do you dispute that the area I highlighted will have more units per square mile than any other area in the city? The timing isn't the issue, it's the finished product I'm talking about. How many units are in the Logan Circle tract and how large is that area? What would a similar sized area in NOMA be at full buildout. Why are you getting frustrated? It's an academic discussion.
My study concentrated on resident population density over the entirety of census tracts at year 2020, not cherry picking parts of census tracts to maximize the densities we are trying to prove. My study is more concerned with the continuity of resident population density over large contiguous areas in central DC. I am less concerned (in reference to this study) with localized density versus sustained density over larger areas in which to gauge a more meaningful snapshot. Sustained density over larger areas is generally more interesting to me. The reason I did not include a part of NoMa in the 2020 map is because of uncertainty over Census Tract 106. Nothing more. When I looked at NoMa, I looked at the entirety of the neighborhood and did not focus studying a localized part of the neighborhood. You have brought a new perspective to the table - unit density, and I appreciate that. I still think we should not be too bullish on occupancy rate and household size that will cover numerous buildings in your cherry-picked section of NoMa.
That area you highlighted is doubtful to be its own census tract exclusively. And, I'm not as bullish as you are as to when full buildout will occur. I don't think it will be reached in 2020, and more specifically, I am conservative on the idea that all announced residential development in that section of NoMa would indeed occur by 2020. And, don't think that currently planned residential could not switch to hotel or office. Some could. We'll have to see, and I'm willing to adjust based on a wait-and-see approach. I temper my bullishness in the face of uncertainty.
With all that being said, the resulting split census tract in 2020 will likely be a much broader area than the one you illustrated. Also, you isolated the NW portion of Census Tract 106. It is doubtful a census tract will be created like that. I think it would be more prudent to at least include the NW portion as part of the new boundary.
Last edited by revitalizer; 01-21-2014 at 04:01 PM..
Really really interesting stuff. Do you ever share this with broader audiences, like through GreaterGreaterWashington or something?
Hi there, KStreet. I have not done anything with GreaterGreaterWashington or similar. They have some high-caliber folks doing great analyses of DC demographics, urban planning, and transportation planning.
Last edited by revitalizer; 01-21-2014 at 03:57 PM..
My study concentrated on resident population density over the entirety of census tracts at year 2020, not cherry picking parts of census tracts to maximize the densities we are trying to prove. My study is more concerned with the continuity of resident population density over large contiguous areas in central DC. I am less concerned (in reference to this study) with localized density versus sustained density over larger areas in which to gauge a more meaningful snapshot. Sustained density over larger areas is generally more interesting to me. The reason I did not include a part of NoMa in the 2020 map is because of uncertainty over Census Tract 106. Nothing more. When I looked at NoMa, I looked at the entirety of the neighborhood and did not focus studying a localized part of the neighborhood. You have brought a new perspective to the table - unit density, and I appreciate that. I still think we should not be too bullish on occupancy rate and household size that will cover numerous buildings in your cherry-picked section of NoMa.
That area you highlighted is doubtful to be its own census tract exclusively. And, I'm not as bullish as you are as to when full buildout will occur. I don't think it will be reached in 2020, and more specifically, I am conservative on the idea that all announced residential development in that section of NoMa would indeed occur by 2020. And, don't think that currently planned residential could not switch to hotel or office. Some could. We'll have to see, and I'm willing to adjust based on a wait-and-see approach. I temper my bullishness in the face of uncertainty.
With all that being said, the resulting split census tract in 2020 will likely be a much broader area than the one you illustrated. Also, you isolated the NW portion of Census Tract 106. It is doubtful a census tract will be created like that. I think it would be more prudent to at least include the NW portion as part of the new boundary.
Interesting that a section as large as tract 5002 in Logan Circle is somehow cherry picked. Seems like that tract (5002) is more cherry picking to me in this regard especially since the census bureau cut it off at the residential building line Mass Ave. instead of adding any office buildings to the south.
Anyway, the whole core is filling in so it's not really important. It will all be high density over the next two decades.
***You might want to check census tract 8301 which has a density of 19,418 PSM, and a population of 2,279. It's currently adding over 600 housing units.***
***Also, 8302 which is adding around the same.***
Last edited by MDAllstar; 01-22-2014 at 12:12 PM..
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.
