How many people can DC hold? (Washington: fit in, apartment complexes, houses)
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.
Is DC truly dense like European cities? Obviously there's an upper limit to the number of possible residents in any city before growth has to level off from soaring housing prices and lack of space to build new housing.
I'm wondering, could DC hold 800,000 residents again like it did in 1950? 900,000? 1 Million?
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,550,614 times
Reputation: 5785
It will hold 800,000 again, probably in 12 years or less.
Realistically I think 950k is where things could level off, but the city technically could probably hold up to about 1.2 million or so if it really tried.
Per DCPC, from OCFO:
Taxable lots in DC = 46.4 square miles
Non-federal lots = 30.2 square miles
Residential tax lots = 17.2 square miles (just 25% of the total area of the District)
DC's neighborhoods vary considerably in density; rowhouse neighborhoods vary from 15,000 (Georgetown) to 30,000 residents per square mile. Start to mix in mid-rise apartments (like Adams-Morgan), and densities rise to 45,000 residents per square mile; add in some high-rises, and it rises to 80,000 (Columbia Heights) or even 100,000 (Logan Circle) residents per square mile. (Note that these are per gross square mile, so they include streets and parks and commercial land, and aren't quite comparable to the net square miles listed above.)
What could be more quintessentially DC than a DC rowhouse? If all of DC's private residential land were divided into median DC rowhouse lots (1,633 sq. ft.), at least 293,636 rowhouses could fit into just the existing residential land. That median rowhouse is 1,372 square feet -- a comfortable 3 bedrooms, or a squeeze with 4 bedrooms, so let's say the average occupancy is 3.5 people.
That yields a population of over one million Washingtonians (1,027,728 to be exact), and everyone gets to live in a quintessentially DC rowhouse. But 65% of DC's housing units are already in apartment buildings, at twice or thrice the density, and besides that works better for some folks... so if we had a DC that was 1/3 rowhouses, 1/3 mid-rise mix, and 1/3 apartments, that's enough space for two million Washingtonians -- with 75% of DC still as streets, parks, offices, museums, etc., no skyscrapers, and nobody living at densities that aren't already found in DC's best-known neighborhoods.
Never let it be said that there's "lack of space to build new housing." There's just a lack of will. For instance, rowhouses are banned in half of DC's zoned land; detached-house-only zoning covers 3X as much land in DC as rowhouse/detached zoning.
Per DCPC, from OCFO:
Taxable lots in DC = 46.4 square miles
Non-federal lots = 30.2 square miles
Residential tax lots = 17.2 square miles (just 25% of the total area of the District)
DC's neighborhoods vary considerably in density; rowhouse neighborhoods vary from 15,000 (Georgetown) to 30,000 residents per square mile. Start to mix in mid-rise apartments (like Adams-Morgan), and densities rise to 45,000 residents per square mile; add in some high-rises, and it rises to 80,000 (Columbia Heights) or even 100,000 (Logan Circle) residents per square mile. (Note that these are per gross square mile, so they include streets and parks and commercial land, and aren't quite comparable to the net square miles listed above.)
What could be more quintessentially DC than a DC rowhouse? If all of DC's private residential land were divided into median DC rowhouse lots (1,633 sq. ft.), at least 293,636 rowhouses could fit into just the existing residential land. That median rowhouse is 1,372 square feet -- a comfortable 3 bedrooms, or a squeeze with 4 bedrooms, so let's say the average occupancy is 3.5 people.
That yields a population of over one million Washingtonians (1,027,728 to be exact), and everyone gets to live in a quintessentially DC rowhouse. But 65% of DC's housing units are already in apartment buildings, at twice or thrice the density, and besides that works better for some folks... so if we had a DC that was 1/3 rowhouses, 1/3 mid-rise mix, and 1/3 apartments, that's enough space for two million Washingtonians -- with 75% of DC still as streets, parks, offices, museums, etc., no skyscrapers, and nobody living at densities that aren't already found in DC's best-known neighborhoods.
Never let it be said that there's "lack of space to build new housing." There's just a lack of will. For instance, rowhouses are banned in half of DC's zoned land; detached-house-only zoning covers 3X as much land in DC as rowhouse/detached zoning.
Exactly, and that will never happen. Washington was built to be like Paris, or Rome or whatever, and it's dense like that where it is, but a huuuge part of DC was built just like the suburbs around it. It's kind of disappointing. So it seems like we have to wait until these suburban style neighborhoods within the district get too old for people to want to buy them.... but in reality, when this happens.... We're just gonna build new suburban style homes in their place. So really... The district's fate is pretty much sealed forever, or, at least into our great great grandchildren's lifetimes.
We built Washington to be a dense Europeanlike city, but in the early 1900s, we decided we were gonna make the rest of DC strictly American and low density. Very disappointing. I at least wish the Virgina part of DC was never returned. It would be a city of well over a million people today.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,550,614 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by KoNgFooCj
Exactly, and that will never happen. Washington was built to be like Paris, or Rome or whatever, and it's dense like that where it is, but a huuuge part of DC was built just like the suburbs around it. It's kind of disappointing. So it seems like we have to wait until these suburban style neighborhoods within the district get too old for people to want to buy them.... but in reality, when this happens.... We're just gonna build new suburban style homes in their place. So really... The district's fate is pretty much sealed forever, or, at least into our great great grandchildren's lifetimes.
We built Washington to be a dense Europeanlike city, but in the early 1900s, we decided we were gonna make the rest of DC strictly American and low density. Very disappointing. I at least wish the Virgina part of DC was never returned. It would be a city of well over a million people today.
I guess you're referring to the city alone population on paper. Because original DC with Alexandria/Arlington is 1.1 million today in 102 sq mi. I fully expect that land mass to be 1.5 million in our lifetimes (same population of 134 sq mi Philly), and maybe creep towards 2 million at some point this century.
DC essentially in 102 sq mi would be 10th largest city in the US:
1 New York, New York- 8,336,817- 301.5 sq mi
2 Los Angeles, California- 3,979,576- 468.7 sq mi
3 Chicago, Illinois- 2,693,976- 227.3 sq mi
4 Houston, Texas- 2,320,268- 637.5 sq mi
5 Phoenix, Arizona- 1,680,992 517.6 sq mi
6 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania- 1,584,064- 134.2 sq mi
7 San Antonio, Texas- 1,547,253- 461.0 sq mi
8 San Diego, California- 1,423,851- 325.2 sq mi
9 Dallas, Texas- 1,343,573 340.9 sq mi 10 (Original DC Diamond)- 1,082,557- 102 sq mi
11 San Jose, California- 1,021,795- 177.5 sq mi
So the present day "original DC diamond" population would be the only top 10 population at around 100 sq mi. (Although, Boston too achieves this population with it's surrounding Cambridge, and Somerville). It's laughable how Phoenix and Houston etc get praised for their size/population, and how far they stretch out to reach that number.
For the District itself, the key to this is zoning and continued emphasis on TOD. The city should zone East of the river even more densely if it wants to resemble a Paris in 61 sq mi (which is really 40 plus sq mi of residential developable land) there isn't much of any suburban style housing West of the Anacostia unless you're talking far upper NW by Chevy Chase border in MD. I see the city proper gaining another 200k if not more by 2050 or so, and will be just below 1 million in our lifetime.
Last edited by the resident09; 07-25-2020 at 02:51 PM..
Realistically I think 800k is obtainable. But it will be hard to get to 900k in the next 20 years. DC wasn't built for mass density like a grand European capital. The vast majority of the city residential land area is rowhouses and SFH. There simply isn't the political will to redevelop those to higher densities. That pretty much leaves small sections of the city to add in housing. Well it's impressive to see 10,000 units going up in NoMa or Navy Yard...it just isn't that much in the grand scheme of things.
Is DC truly dense like European cities? Obviously there's an upper limit to the number of possible residents in any city before growth has to level off from soaring housing prices and lack of space to build new housing.
I'm wondering, could DC hold 800,000 residents again like it did in 1950? 900,000? 1 Million?
There is plenty of room to hold 800k people. DC is probably going to hit that mark within the next 5-10 years with the current growth rate.
DC can keep growing exponentially. Gentrification will continue to grow in NE, SE, and SW. By building more large apartment complexes, you can fit a lot of people into small lots that are currently taken up by projects, rowhouses, vacant land, etc. in undesirable areas. Also, I feel DC would ease up on the current height restrictions if it came down to it. Right now, there are plenty of neighborhoods that can grow. That means a lot of people will be pushed out to make room for higher income people, but its been happening, and will continue to do so.
The federal height limits limit DC to roughly 10-14ish story buildings, depending on the area. The portion of that District built to that height limit is relatively tiny (Downtown, parts of NoMa, parts of Navy Yard mostly.
So much of the District is rowhomes and single family homes, so we could fit a crazy amount more people in our 68 square miles. Paris has, what, 2 million in 38 square miles and they do it with like 6 story buildings (albeit narrower streets in most cases). We got a wide latitude to grow. For now they're finishing up the low hanging fruit (parking lots, single story retail buildings, industrial properties, etc.) but once those are redeveloped I would expect to see more of a citywide up zoning (legalizing missing middle housing types, for instance). That could add a lot more people and jobs to the District than the more recent intense but geographically miniscule upzonings in Navy Yard, NoMa, etc.
Suffice to say, probably something over 2 million if we got serious about our zoning restrictions. Plus, the whole rest of the region could grow a lot more too, especially if MD or VA legalizes duplexes statewide or implements some other preemption of local government land use regulations.
Greater Paris is, what, like 12 million? The DC Baltimore region is like 9.7 million or so? We are spread out now, but as core revitalization continues I could see DC feeling like more of a megacity in my lifetime. Especially in MARC and VRE are combined and joined to work similar to the RER or something.
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.
