Real talk about the city’s economy, federal buildings leases, and telework impacts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in Shaw. Been here nearly 20 years. I’m very worried about the direction the city is going in— which is rapidly into a cesspool of crime, blight and vacancy. I think we can’t undo the remote work. I work in DuPont just two days a week and my spouse with full time. Our neighborhood is loud (constant construction which I now worry will sit empty), motorcycles/atvs, loud engines, etc). This has gotten worse, not better. The bike lines sound like a good idea, but have led to ore rush hour congestion, not less, leaving cars to idle longer in traffic, leading to more pollution exposure.

I feel like this is dire. We need big ideas to realign downtown that doesn’t bank on feds and k street suits coming back. We need to get enforcem no public camping and address violent crime with more police and get rid of this woke Coincil. How about converting buildings into live/work loft spaces, with a good number of affordable units. Incentives for small businesses, cafes, etc. destroy ugly, outdated and vacant buildings for green space? Make some core thoroughfares into pedestrian malls with semi permanent outdoor markets and streeteries?

Was just in Paris which was thronging with tourists, tons of restaurants, cafe, markets and small businesses. Besides their culture, what other things do they do to ensure their cities remain vibrant? I noticed street cleaning trucks out everyday picking up litter and washing the streets literally.

Paris is a real world class city, which DC never was. Cities like NY and Paris have tourists and hoarded of people who want to live there regardless of employment.

DC is a company town. Very few people would ever aspire to live here if they won the lottery. There has always been limited high end shopping and entertainment. The mayor and local government made a huge mistake going all in on Covid. While it was nice to go against and hurt Trump, they ended up only hurting themselves. Remote work to a certain extent is here to stay and it will likely take DC decades to recover.

I saw the writing on the wall during the protests and sold my property in DC. A city does not have a great future if it’s allowing that kind of behavior while keeping schools closed and punishing small businesses.

You want to be feeling good about disinvesting from the city, so your opinion is clearly biased. DC doesn't need to be compared to NYC or Paris to be livable or enjoyable. Objectively speaking, there is nothing wrong with DC urban grid or its appearance to prevent it from being a desirable place to live and work. It already has existing infrastructure for a vibrant residential city life, it will take time to redevelop it and have people move in. You are predicting this will never happen and nobody likes to live in DC?

What does NYC have that DC doesn't? Broadway? Shrug. We visit NYC, we go to shows, we've gone to the museums and things but otherwise it's meh. Been to Paris at well - Paris at least has a bit more history but beyond that, a lot of Paris's character is more mental than real.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in Shaw. Been here nearly 20 years. I’m very worried about the direction the city is going in— which is rapidly into a cesspool of crime, blight and vacancy. I think we can’t undo the remote work. I work in DuPont just two days a week and my spouse with full time. Our neighborhood is loud (constant construction which I now worry will sit empty), motorcycles/atvs, loud engines, etc). This has gotten worse, not better. The bike lines sound like a good idea, but have led to ore rush hour congestion, not less, leaving cars to idle longer in traffic, leading to more pollution exposure.

I feel like this is dire. We need big ideas to realign downtown that doesn’t bank on feds and k street suits coming back. We need to get enforcem no public camping and address violent crime with more police and get rid of this woke Coincil. How about converting buildings into live/work loft spaces, with a good number of affordable units. Incentives for small businesses, cafes, etc. destroy ugly, outdated and vacant buildings for green space? Make some core thoroughfares into pedestrian malls with semi permanent outdoor markets and streeteries?

Was just in Paris which was thronging with tourists, tons of restaurants, cafe, markets and small businesses. Besides their culture, what other things do they do to ensure their cities remain vibrant? I noticed street cleaning trucks out everyday picking up litter and washing the streets literally.

Paris is a real world class city, which DC never was. Cities like NY and Paris have tourists and hoarded of people who want to live there regardless of employment.

DC is a company town. Very few people would ever aspire to live here if they won the lottery. There has always been limited high end shopping and entertainment. The mayor and local government made a huge mistake going all in on Covid. While it was nice to go against and hurt Trump, they ended up only hurting themselves. Remote work to a certain extent is here to stay and it will likely take DC decades to recover.

I saw the writing on the wall during the protests and sold my property in DC. A city does not have a great future if it’s allowing that kind of behavior while keeping schools closed and punishing small businesses.

You want to be feeling good about disinvesting from the city, so your opinion is clearly biased. DC doesn't need to be compared to NYC or Paris to be livable or enjoyable. Objectively speaking, there is nothing wrong with DC urban grid or its appearance to prevent it from being a desirable place to live and work. It already has existing infrastructure for a vibrant residential city life, it will take time to redevelop it and have people move in. You are predicting this will never happen and nobody likes to live in DC?

What does NYC have that DC doesn't? Broadway? Shrug. We visit NYC, we go to shows, we've gone to the museums and things but otherwise it's meh. Been to Paris at well - Paris at least has a bit more history but beyond that, a lot of Paris's character is more mental than real.

Skyscrapers.

Actually, NYC has a vibrant arts scene that DC completely lacks. It is not Broadway, it is off-Broadway where the difference is made.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Fed refusal to go back to work is killing Metro as well; and Metro is already reeling from the pandemic drop in ridership (as well as the crime issues). Do you like being able to take Metro to the Caps or the Nats? They can't run an entire system for the benefit of Nats Park and the Verizon Center. I also just flat out don't believe that people are as efficient working from home 5 days a week. They just aren't---whether private or public. And young people cannot learn job skills (soft or hard) sitting on their sofas at home. We need a reasonable compromise on the work week---maybe Tu-We-Th becomes the new "in office" work week and Fri and Mo are the universal "work from home".

Subway ridership in NYC is still at about 60% of pre-pandemic levels also. So don't just blame federal workers; the private sector workers aren't using subways either. It would be nice if, instead of focusing on easy solutions (like forcing people into the office against their will), metro leadership focused on cleanliness, fare-jumping, crime, safety, and reliability.

Don't forget that DC metro is a lot more expensive than NYC subway where your ticket price is fixed no matter what distance you go and you can purchase a monthly pass for 100 something bucks to ride unlimited on subways/buses, often subsidized by your employer and given for free to public school kids. DC metro isn't affordable for people who need it. For people who have options to drive metro has become undesirable due to crime.

It is not encouraging that WMATA is now trying to bully and prevent the Safety Commission from appropriately doing its job when the transit system has never proved that it can operate safely without that oversight - god forbid the Board would be expected to provide oversight. I’m not interested is riding in an unsafe transit system on trains that have a defect that causes them to derail that has not been identified that are operated by a transit system that doesn’t take safety seriously. No thanks.

That’s not my impression of what Wmata is doing. Seems like WMSC is trying to micromanage them. If Wmata managers can’t make relatively small and simple decisions how can they do their jobs? The operator training hoops they’re having to jump through doesn’t make anything safer, it’s a bureaucratic check the boxes exercise.

(Btw l don’t work for Wmata but follow it with interest)

If the Safety Commission goes away, do you believe Metro can operating safely on its own? Yes or no?

That’s the only question that needs to be asked. And answer to the question is self-evident in the fact that the Safety Commission had to be created in the first place.

WMATA now thinks it doesn’t need safety oversight when it keep its operators actively trained nor even maintain records of operator training. That’s just negligence.

But fine, let’s have a test. Let’s end the Safety Commission and then let’s see what happens next.

It’s not black and white like that. You can have an independent safety commission / regulator (like all transportation modes in the US), but it doesn’t have to be a micromanager. If you’re just answering audits all day it doesn’t leave time for other work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does the mayor honestly believe that these folks are coming back? They left to go start families in the suburbs and mid-sized metros. Building 15k micro apartments downtown is not going to convince these people to return. Three bedroom apartments on Capitol Hill might, but they just spent the last decade building nothing but studios and 1-BDs. Just goes to show the risks of designing your economic strategy around a demographic cohort. When the trends turn against you, your economy is in serious trouble.

It’s hard not to see DC in real trouble looking at these numbers. Unless DC can create thousands more 3-4 bedroom houses with yards, it’s not clear how the city meets this population goal. Throw in fear of crime, schools, fiscal issues and downtown revitalization on top of everything else and it’s difficult to feel positive about the near term unless big changes are made.

Compared to other cities DC has plenty of housing with yards, and if you desire anything more than a rowhouse or a detached house on a small lot (common in residential parts of DC) then maybe city life isn't really what you are looking for?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does the mayor honestly believe that these folks are coming back? They left to go start families in the suburbs and mid-sized metros. Building 15k micro apartments downtown is not going to convince these people to return. Three bedroom apartments on Capitol Hill might, but they just spent the last decade building nothing but studios and 1-BDs. Just goes to show the risks of designing your economic strategy around a demographic cohort. When the trends turn against you, your economy is in serious trouble.

It’s hard not to see DC in real trouble looking at these numbers. Unless DC can create thousands more 3-4 bedroom houses with yards, it’s not clear how the city meets this population goal. Throw in fear of crime, schools, fiscal issues and downtown revitalization on top of everything else and it’s difficult to feel positive about the near term unless big changes are made.

Compared to other cities DC has plenty of housing with yards, and if you desire anything more than a rowhouse or a detached house on a small lot (common in residential parts of DC) then maybe city life isn't really what you are looking for?

Which cities? NYC? Yes. Philly? Maybe. Pittsburgh? No. Also no for Chicago, Raleigh, Charlotte, Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Boston, Jacksonsville, Orlando, St. Pete, Seattle, Portland, etc, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
+1. People who live in DC often take a very narrow-minded view of the suburbs and think that they're just full of people who would live in DC but are priced out. The truth is that many of us are totally happy in the suburbs, and we really only come into DC for work and don't find anything about DC to be particularly enjoyable. I'm sure this is true of other major cities as well; not everyone has bought into the idea that you can't have an exciting and fulfilling life if you don't live in a city.

Suburbanites are parasites on host cities. Film at 11.

Perhaps you should tell our employers to pay us enough to live there then. Given the cost of housing in DC, this isn't an "avoiding property taxes" thing.

The amount of money that I would need to be paid to live in DC in an equivalent safe neighborhood on a large lot on a quiet, tree lined street would be unconscionable. In any case, where I live the infrastructure and government services are much better so even if I was paid enough for the equivalent lifestyle it would not be an equivalent exchange. Particularly since it is vastly more convenient to get around and shop.

LOL, how many people (especially younger people) can afford to have a "large lot on a quiet tree lined street" anywhere? Most cannot afford to buy a home in the suburbs anyway, if you have one and can afford one this doesn't make it reality for everyone. Many people will have to resort to apartment living, and apartment living is objectively nicer in urban grid setting in the city vs. in the suburbs if you reduce crime and homelessness.

There is a reason that Howard County is growing as fast as it is. Others just leave the region entirely and move to the south or southwest. The people who would otherwise be the middle class tax base can afford a single family home with a yard if they move out far enough and the are increasingly willing to do it. DC is left with those wealthy enough to stay, those young enough to not care yet, and those too poor to leave.

There will always be people moving in and out. Wealthy have more than one home, they will stay, can afford it. Young will always come and go, they are transient. Some will move away and a new crop will take their place. Why is the trend of younger people getting settled and leaving for cheaper suburban/exurban homes supposed to be surprising these days?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does the mayor honestly believe that these folks are coming back? They left to go start families in the suburbs and mid-sized metros. Building 15k micro apartments downtown is not going to convince these people to return. Three bedroom apartments on Capitol Hill might, but they just spent the last decade building nothing but studios and 1-BDs. Just goes to show the risks of designing your economic strategy around a demographic cohort. When the trends turn against you, your economy is in serious trouble.

It’s hard not to see DC in real trouble looking at these numbers. Unless DC can create thousands more 3-4 bedroom houses with yards, it’s not clear how the city meets this population goal. Throw in fear of crime, schools, fiscal issues and downtown revitalization on top of everything else and it’s difficult to feel positive about the near term unless big changes are made.

Compared to other cities DC has plenty of housing with yards, and if you desire anything more than a rowhouse or a detached house on a small lot (common in residential parts of DC) then maybe city life isn't really what you are looking for?

Greater Greater Washington developers have their targets set on these. Goodbye green walkable neighborhoods. Will be like all the other cement cities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does the mayor honestly believe that these folks are coming back? They left to go start families in the suburbs and mid-sized metros. Building 15k micro apartments downtown is not going to convince these people to return. Three bedroom apartments on Capitol Hill might, but they just spent the last decade building nothing but studios and 1-BDs. Just goes to show the risks of designing your economic strategy around a demographic cohort. When the trends turn against you, your economy is in serious trouble.

It’s hard not to see DC in real trouble looking at these numbers. Unless DC can create thousands more 3-4 bedroom houses with yards, it’s not clear how the city meets this population goal. Throw in fear of crime, schools, fiscal issues and downtown revitalization on top of everything else and it’s difficult to feel positive about the near term unless big changes are made.

Compared to other cities DC has plenty of housing with yards, and if you desire anything more than a rowhouse or a detached house on a small lot (common in residential parts of DC) then maybe city life isn't really what you are looking for?

Affordable homes in safe neighborhoods? In DC, you can pick one or the other. Families who would rather not choose leave

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
+1. People who live in DC often take a very narrow-minded view of the suburbs and think that they're just full of people who would live in DC but are priced out. The truth is that many of us are totally happy in the suburbs, and we really only come into DC for work and don't find anything about DC to be particularly enjoyable. I'm sure this is true of other major cities as well; not everyone has bought into the idea that you can't have an exciting and fulfilling life if you don't live in a city.

Suburbanites are parasites on host cities. Film at 11.

Perhaps you should tell our employers to pay us enough to live there then. Given the cost of housing in DC, this isn't an "avoiding property taxes" thing.

The amount of money that I would need to be paid to live in DC in an equivalent safe neighborhood on a large lot on a quiet, tree lined street would be unconscionable. In any case, where I live the infrastructure and government services are much better so even if I was paid enough for the equivalent lifestyle it would not be an equivalent exchange. Particularly since it is vastly more convenient to get around and shop.

Great, population isn’t shrinking and there is no problem at all and Bowser can stop complaining

LOL, how many people (especially younger people) can afford to have a "large lot on a quiet tree lined street" anywhere? Most cannot afford to buy a home in the suburbs anyway, if you have one and can afford one this doesn't make it reality for everyone. Many people will have to resort to apartment living, and apartment living is objectively nicer in urban grid setting in the city vs. in the suburbs if you reduce crime and homelessness.

There is a reason that Howard County is growing as fast as it is. Others just leave the region entirely and move to the south or southwest. The people who would otherwise be the middle class tax base can afford a single family home with a yard if they move out far enough and the are increasingly willing to do it. DC is left with those wealthy enough to stay, those young enough to not care yet, and those too poor to leave.

There will always be people moving in and out. Wealthy have more than one home, they will stay, can afford it. Young will always come and go, they are transient. Some will move away and a new crop will take their place. Why is the trend of younger people getting settled and leaving for cheaper suburban/exurban homes supposed to be surprising these days?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Fed refusal to go back to work is killing Metro as well; and Metro is already reeling from the pandemic drop in ridership (as well as the crime issues). Do you like being able to take Metro to the Caps or the Nats? They can't run an entire system for the benefit of Nats Park and the Verizon Center. I also just flat out don't believe that people are as efficient working from home 5 days a week. They just aren't---whether private or public. And young people cannot learn job skills (soft or hard) sitting on their sofas at home. We need a reasonable compromise on the work week---maybe Tu-We-Th becomes the new "in office" work week and Fri and Mo are the universal "work from home".

Subway ridership in NYC is still at about 60% of pre-pandemic levels also. So don't just blame federal workers; the private sector workers aren't using subways either. It would be nice if, instead of focusing on easy solutions (like forcing people into the office against their will), metro leadership focused on cleanliness, fare-jumping, crime, safety, and reliability.

Don't forget that DC metro is a lot more expensive than NYC subway where your ticket price is fixed no matter what distance you go and you can purchase a monthly pass for 100 something bucks to ride unlimited on subways/buses, often subsidized by your employer and given for free to public school kids. DC metro isn't affordable for people who need it. For people who have options to drive metro has become undesirable due to crime.

It is not encouraging that WMATA is now trying to bully and prevent the Safety Commission from appropriately doing its job when the transit system has never proved that it can operate safely without that oversight - god forbid the Board would be expected to provide oversight. I’m not interested is riding in an unsafe transit system on trains that have a defect that causes them to derail that has not been identified that are operated by a transit system that doesn’t take safety seriously. No thanks.

That’s not my impression of what Wmata is doing. Seems like WMSC is trying to micromanage them. If Wmata managers can’t make relatively small and simple decisions how can they do their jobs? The operator training hoops they’re having to jump through doesn’t make anything safer, it’s a bureaucratic check the boxes exercise.

(Btw l don’t work for Wmata but follow it with interest)

If the Safety Commission goes away, do you believe Metro can operating safely on its own? Yes or no?

That’s the only question that needs to be asked. And answer to the question is self-evident in the fact that the Safety Commission had to be created in the first place.

WMATA now thinks it doesn’t need safety oversight when it keep its operators actively trained nor even maintain records of operator training. That’s just negligence.

But fine, let’s have a test. Let’s end the Safety Commission and then let’s see what happens next.

It’s not black and white like that. You can have an independent safety commission / regulator (like all transportation modes in the US), but it doesn’t have to be a micromanager. If you’re just answering audits all day it doesn’t leave time for other work.

Yes it is that simple. Either accept the regulation or take it away and roll the dice. You seem to be very uncomfortable with rolling the dice with your life. So they need to accept the requirements laid for by the regulator. There is no halfway here and trying to browbeat the folks responsible for safety into undercutting safety is a sure fire way to lead to catastrophe. The last thing they were trying to fight the Safety Commission over was procedures for monitoring and verification of the 7000 series cars. I am not going to be taking Metrorail until there is clear evidence that they actually have a safety culture, have been able to operate safely for some time and the 7000 cars are retired or otherwise fixed. WMATA created these problems and the fact that they prefer to act like a petulant child than change and be safe should not be encouraging for anyone.

I would just add that better operator training would have saved the life of Carol Inman Glover, who was killed by WMATA because the operators stopped the train in a smoky tunnel which was against policy. The idea that they are pushing back against operator training AFTER they killed someone as a direct outcome of poor training is unfathomable. Even worse is that there were two-years when Metrorail was barely operating and instead of being responsible to ensure that all operators kept their training and certifications up to date, they let them lapse and didn’t even bother to have a system to track it. That should frighten anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does the mayor honestly believe that these folks are coming back? They left to go start families in the suburbs and mid-sized metros. Building 15k micro apartments downtown is not going to convince these people to return. Three bedroom apartments on Capitol Hill might, but they just spent the last decade building nothing but studios and 1-BDs. Just goes to show the risks of designing your economic strategy around a demographic cohort. When the trends turn against you, your economy is in serious trouble.

It’s hard not to see DC in real trouble looking at these numbers. Unless DC can create thousands more 3-4 bedroom houses with yards, it’s not clear how the city meets this population goal. Throw in fear of crime, schools, fiscal issues and downtown revitalization on top of everything else and it’s difficult to feel positive about the near term unless big changes are made.

Compared to other cities DC has plenty of housing with yards, and if you desire anything more than a rowhouse or a detached house on a small lot (common in residential parts of DC) then maybe city life isn't really what you are looking for?

Which cities? NYC? Yes. Philly? Maybe. Pittsburgh? No. Also no for Chicago, Raleigh, Charlotte, Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Boston, Jacksonsville, Orlando, St. Pete, Seattle, Portland, etc, etc.

You listed a bunch of sprawly suburban-like cities here, but if you go to their city center or more interesting urban parts where you could maybe live car free or at least do most of your necessary errands on foot, then you won't find affordable 4 bedr detached homes with big yards. These are always expensive everywhere, because most of the housing stock in truly urban areas is higher density. You are going to say that DC metro doesn't have enough residential areas and suburbs? It does, but it will be more expensive than some of the cities you listed and about the same as the others you listed. If you desire SFH living you can find it anywhere, but city doesn't need to have most of its housing stock consisting of SFHs to thrive. The city that still has the highest rents is the densest one, apparently enough people want to live there not deterred by a complete lack of any opportunity for SFH living.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in Shaw. Been here nearly 20 years. I’m very worried about the direction the city is going in— which is rapidly into a cesspool of crime, blight and vacancy. I think we can’t undo the remote work. I work in DuPont just two days a week and my spouse with full time. Our neighborhood is loud (constant construction which I now worry will sit empty), motorcycles/atvs, loud engines, etc). This has gotten worse, not better. The bike lines sound like a good idea, but have led to ore rush hour congestion, not less, leaving cars to idle longer in traffic, leading to more pollution exposure.

I feel like this is dire. We need big ideas to realign downtown that doesn’t bank on feds and k street suits coming back. We need to get enforcem no public camping and address violent crime with more police and get rid of this woke Coincil. How about converting buildings into live/work loft spaces, with a good number of affordable units. Incentives for small businesses, cafes, etc. destroy ugly, outdated and vacant buildings for green space? Make some core thoroughfares into pedestrian malls with semi permanent outdoor markets and streeteries?

Was just in Paris which was thronging with tourists, tons of restaurants, cafe, markets and small businesses. Besides their culture, what other things do they do to ensure their cities remain vibrant? I noticed street cleaning trucks out everyday picking up litter and washing the streets literally.

Paris is a real world class city, which DC never was. Cities like NY and Paris have tourists and hoarded of people who want to live there regardless of employment.

DC is a company town. Very few people would ever aspire to live here if they won the lottery. There has always been limited high end shopping and entertainment. The mayor and local government made a huge mistake going all in on Covid. While it was nice to go against and hurt Trump, they ended up only hurting themselves. Remote work to a certain extent is here to stay and it will likely take DC decades to recover.

I saw the writing on the wall during the protests and sold my property in DC. A city does not have a great future if it’s allowing that kind of behavior while keeping schools closed and punishing small businesses.

You want to be feeling good about disinvesting from the city, so your opinion is clearly biased. DC doesn't need to be compared to NYC or Paris to be livable or enjoyable. Objectively speaking, there is nothing wrong with DC urban grid or its appearance to prevent it from being a desirable place to live and work. It already has existing infrastructure for a vibrant residential city life, it will take time to redevelop it and have people move in. You are predicting this will never happen and nobody likes to live in DC?

What does NYC have that DC doesn't? Broadway? Shrug. We visit NYC, we go to shows, we've gone to the museums and things but otherwise it's meh. Been to Paris at well - Paris at least has a bit more history but beyond that, a lot of Paris's character is more mental than real.

You are a disenchanted tourist, Ok, I got it. I don't think you will appreciate living in these cities and that's fine, different strokes. But you are insinuating that everyone is like you and has no interest in urban living. NYC rents are at all time highs (came back with a vengeance after the pandemic) . Apparently many enough people are disagreeing with you. And it's not mandatory full time return to the office that's forcing them into these high rents either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
+1. People who live in DC often take a very narrow-minded view of the suburbs and think that they're just full of people who would live in DC but are priced out. The truth is that many of us are totally happy in the suburbs, and we really only come into DC for work and don't find anything about DC to be particularly enjoyable. I'm sure this is true of other major cities as well; not everyone has bought into the idea that you can't have an exciting and fulfilling life if you don't live in a city.

Suburbanites are parasites on host cities. Film at 11.

Perhaps you should tell our employers to pay us enough to live there then. Given the cost of housing in DC, this isn't an "avoiding property taxes" thing.

The amount of money that I would need to be paid to live in DC in an equivalent safe neighborhood on a large lot on a quiet, tree lined street would be unconscionable. In any case, where I live the infrastructure and government services are much better so even if I was paid enough for the equivalent lifestyle it would not be an equivalent exchange. Particularly since it is vastly more convenient to get around and shop.

LOL, how many people (especially younger people) can afford to have a "large lot on a quiet tree lined street" anywhere? Most cannot afford to buy a home in the suburbs anyway, if you have one and can afford one this doesn't make it reality for everyone. Many people will have to resort to apartment living, and apartment living is objectively nicer in urban grid setting in the city vs. in the suburbs if you reduce crime and homelessness.

There is a reason that Howard County is growing as fast as it is. Others just leave the region entirely and move to the south or southwest. The people who would otherwise be the middle class tax base can afford a single family home with a yard if they move out far enough and the are increasingly willing to do it. DC is left with those wealthy enough to stay, those young enough to not care yet, and those too poor to leave.

There will always be people moving in and out. Wealthy have more than one home, they will stay, can afford it. Young will always come and go, they are transient. Some will move away and a new crop will take their place. Why is the trend of younger people getting settled and leaving for cheaper suburban/exurban homes supposed to be surprising these days?

Do you want to know what the real problem is? It is a demographic issue. DC greatly benefited from this huge cohort of Millennials flocking to cities and based its entire private sector economy, built environment and tax base around the presumption that this would continue indefinitely. Instead, what is happening is exactly as you point out, they are reverting to traditional behavior. However, it is such a large cohort that it will cause significant disruption and the city is not ready for it nor has come to terms that it is happening. Bowsers revitalization plan presumes that the remaining Millennials who are 30-45 years old will stay without understanding that they need to change to accommodate household formation and families and that there is a huge cohort of Gen Z behind them that will add to it. It makes zero sense as a strategy and from this perspective it looks like a city run by addicts who think that there is always another fix and will keep chasing that fix until they hit rock bottom. The reality is that the population of the city will not be appreciably increasing any time soon. In fact, the population growth of the whole USA is slowing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does the mayor honestly believe that these folks are coming back? They left to go start families in the suburbs and mid-sized metros. Building 15k micro apartments downtown is not going to convince these people to return. Three bedroom apartments on Capitol Hill might, but they just spent the last decade building nothing but studios and 1-BDs. Just goes to show the risks of designing your economic strategy around a demographic cohort. When the trends turn against you, your economy is in serious trouble.

It’s hard not to see DC in real trouble looking at these numbers. Unless DC can create thousands more 3-4 bedroom houses with yards, it’s not clear how the city meets this population goal. Throw in fear of crime, schools, fiscal issues and downtown revitalization on top of everything else and it’s difficult to feel positive about the near term unless big changes are made.

Compared to other cities DC has plenty of housing with yards, and if you desire anything more than a rowhouse or a detached house on a small lot (common in residential parts of DC) then maybe city life isn't really what you are looking for?

Greater Greater Washington developers have their targets set on these. Goodbye green walkable neighborhoods. Will be like all the other cement cities.

What do you mean by this? Are you thinking of specific neighborhoods? I live in AU Park and it doesn’t feel like that’s going to happen. The too-big developer new builds in the neighborhood get mercilessly mocked on here and seem to take a long time to sell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does the mayor honestly believe that these folks are coming back? They left to go start families in the suburbs and mid-sized metros. Building 15k micro apartments downtown is not going to convince these people to return. Three bedroom apartments on Capitol Hill might, but they just spent the last decade building nothing but studios and 1-BDs. Just goes to show the risks of designing your economic strategy around a demographic cohort. When the trends turn against you, your economy is in serious trouble.

It’s hard not to see DC in real trouble looking at these numbers. Unless DC can create thousands more 3-4 bedroom houses with yards, it’s not clear how the city meets this population goal. Throw in fear of crime, schools, fiscal issues and downtown revitalization on top of everything else and it’s difficult to feel positive about the near term unless big changes are made.

Compared to other cities DC has plenty of housing with yards, and if you desire anything more than a rowhouse or a detached house on a small lot (common in residential parts of DC) then maybe city life isn't really what you are looking for?

Which cities? NYC? Yes. Philly? Maybe. Pittsburgh? No. Also no for Chicago, Raleigh, Charlotte, Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Boston, Jacksonsville, Orlando, St. Pete, Seattle, Portland, etc, etc.

You listed a bunch of sprawly suburban-like cities here, but if you go to their city center or more interesting urban parts where you could maybe live car free or at least do most of your necessary errands on foot, then you won't find affordable 4 bedr detached homes with big yards. These are always expensive everywhere, because most of the housing stock in truly urban areas is higher density. You are going to say that DC metro doesn't have enough residential areas and suburbs? It does, but it will be more expensive than some of the cities you listed and about the same as the others you listed. If you desire SFH living you can find it anywhere, but city doesn't need to have most of its housing stock consisting of SFHs to thrive. The city that still has the highest rents is the densest one, apparently enough people want to live there not deterred by a complete lack of any opportunity for SFH living.

You said “compared to other cities” and that is false. In fact, almost all cities in the USA provide more available SFH housing with yards. If you want to disqualify cities that you don’t deem worthy, that’s on you. However, that is also where DC residents along with many Americans are moving to so you may need to come to terms with it.