Everytime a condo is built and/or a gentrifier moves to DC the city becomes less & less interesting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If gentrification means no random drive-bys, no open drug dealing, and very little petty crime then I am all for it.
Just because we live in an urban city, doesn't mean we should just shrug our shoulders when crime happens.
I lived in London in the mid-80's (a much larger city than this one) and I never felt unsafe there, even in crappy neighborhoods (areas that are now gentrified like Hoxton or Kilburn).

But DC crime is high...especially if your comparing it to the last couple of years. So we now have bland atmosphere and a lot of crime

Well I guess that means lots of snatch & run thefts by teenage thugs who do not fear the slap on the wrist DC justice system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I do not want another luxury apartment/condo building that will sit half empty for 6 months.

NP. Yes, you do.

This is what is going to solve the problem moving forward. They're overbuilding into a zero growth local economy. Republicans will control the budget process for at least the next two fiscal years. Even small cuts in federal spending over this period will result in local economic contraction. We're entirely dependent on federal spending after all.

Canyons of empty condos are going to put downward pressure on rents. Affordable housing, here we come!

No way. These companies all use interest-only bullet loans to finance these developments. They don't pay a dollar of principle on these condo or "luxury" rental buildings. As long as they can cover their interest expense, they will keep the units empty before lowering prices. Price cuts led to a lot of busts in DC in 2007-2009 (see Yards Park). These guys are all colluding to keep prices up; a price war hurts everyone.

They are all banking on selling on these projects en mass to REITs, PE funds, or commercial banks. Or they just re-finance into another 10 year bullet loan.

"Or they just refinance?" LOL.

Also, you forgot the part where you're supposed to say "it's different this time."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


.





.





.




Do you remember Murrell's? Electromax? Saxitone? The Wiz?

Electromax was the shit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There aren't enough gentrifiers in my neighborhood in NE.
Plenty of drug dealing and moped riding hoodies though. Can we also trade one of the 5 liquor stores in 2 blocks for a Starbucks? Pretty please??

i hope this is sarcasm

Not one sentence was sarcastic. Do you need clarification on anything? Gentrification is coming very slowly in my neck of the woods (Brentwood).

+100. Gentrification is one funny word, in that it tries hard to give some negative connotations to something THAT IS CLEARLY POSITIVE.

"Gentrification" describes urban renewal that involves an influx of middle and upper middle class people that displaces lower middle class and low income people. Whether it's a positive thing often depends on your perspective. Early adopter gentrifiers often reap the benefits of cheap housing costs, but they have to also live with the negative aspects of living in area with a lot of poverty (crime, few amenities, etc.). When businesses start moving in, housing prices go up, making it difficult for low income people (some of whom have lived in the neighborhood for generations, who may own their homes, etc.) to continue to afford to live there. Sometimes the money being thrown at low income home owners by developers is just too good to pass up.

Having amenities and lower crime is not a bad thing, in and of itself. When those things come at the cost of forcing out all the people that used to live in an area, many people do not think it's a good thing.

So what do you call these low income people who displaced the previous set of middle class people (many of them white who were forced to sell their homes for far less than the value prior to the riots) after the riots?

[Anonymous]

Who leaves a MacBook Pro unattended like that?

No street smarts. No common sense. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There aren't enough gentrifiers in my neighborhood in NE.
Plenty of drug dealing and moped riding hoodies though. Can we also trade one of the 5 liquor stores in 2 blocks for a Starbucks? Pretty please??

i hope this is sarcasm

Not one sentence was sarcastic. Do you need clarification on anything? Gentrification is coming very slowly in my neck of the woods (Brentwood).

+100. Gentrification is one funny word, in that it tries hard to give some negative connotations to something THAT IS CLEARLY POSITIVE.

"Gentrification" describes urban renewal that involves an influx of middle and upper middle class people that displaces lower middle class and low income people. Whether it's a positive thing often depends on your perspective. Early adopter gentrifiers often reap the benefits of cheap housing costs, but they have to also live with the negative aspects of living in area with a lot of poverty (crime, few amenities, etc.). When businesses start moving in, housing prices go up, making it difficult for low income people (some of whom have lived in the neighborhood for generations, who may own their homes, etc.) to continue to afford to live there. Sometimes the money being thrown at low income home owners by developers is just too good to pass up.

Having amenities and lower crime is not a bad thing, in and of itself. When those things come at the cost of forcing out all the people that used to live in an area, many people do not think it's a good thing.

So what do you call these low income people who displaced the previous set of middle class people (many of them white who were forced to sell their homes for far less than the value prior to the riots) after the riots?

So now all DC locals/DC natives who stayed in DC after the riots are low income?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There aren't enough gentrifiers in my neighborhood in NE.
Plenty of drug dealing and moped riding hoodies though. Can we also trade one of the 5 liquor stores in 2 blocks for a Starbucks? Pretty please??

i hope this is sarcasm

Not one sentence was sarcastic. Do you need clarification on anything? Gentrification is coming very slowly in my neck of the woods (Brentwood).

+100. Gentrification is one funny word, in that it tries hard to give some negative connotations to something THAT IS CLEARLY POSITIVE.

"Gentrification" describes urban renewal that involves an influx of middle and upper middle class people that displaces lower middle class and low income people. Whether it's a positive thing often depends on your perspective. Early adopter gentrifiers often reap the benefits of cheap housing costs, but they have to also live with the negative aspects of living in area with a lot of poverty (crime, few amenities, etc.). When businesses start moving in, housing prices go up, making it difficult for low income people (some of whom have lived in the neighborhood for generations, who may own their homes, etc.) to continue to afford to live there. Sometimes the money being thrown at low income home owners by developers is just too good to pass up.

Having amenities and lower crime is not a bad thing, in and of itself. When those things come at the cost of forcing out all the people that used to live in an area, many people do not think it's a good thing.

So what do you call these low income people who displaced the previous set of middle class people (many of them white who were forced to sell their homes for far less than the value prior to the riots) after the riots?

So now all DC locals/DC natives who stayed in DC after the riots are low income?

Nope. They were violent or accomplices or just coward bystanders, but I am sure not everyone who stayed was low income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There aren't enough gentrifiers in my neighborhood in NE.
Plenty of drug dealing and moped riding hoodies though. Can we also trade one of the 5 liquor stores in 2 blocks for a Starbucks? Pretty please??

i hope this is sarcasm

Not one sentence was sarcastic. Do you need clarification on anything? Gentrification is coming very slowly in my neck of the woods (Brentwood).

+100. Gentrification is one funny word, in that it tries hard to give some negative connotations to something THAT IS CLEARLY POSITIVE.

"Gentrification" describes urban renewal that involves an influx of middle and upper middle class people that displaces lower middle class and low income people. Whether it's a positive thing often depends on your perspective. Early adopter gentrifiers often reap the benefits of cheap housing costs, but they have to also live with the negative aspects of living in area with a lot of poverty (crime, few amenities, etc.). When businesses start moving in, housing prices go up, making it difficult for low income people (some of whom have lived in the neighborhood for generations, who may own their homes, etc.) to continue to afford to live there. Sometimes the money being thrown at low income home owners by developers is just too good to pass up.

Having amenities and lower crime is not a bad thing, in and of itself. When those things come at the cost of forcing out all the people that used to live in an area, many people do not think it's a good thing.

So what do you call these low income people who displaced the previous set of middle class people (many of them white who were forced to sell their homes for far less than the value prior to the riots) after the riots?

So now all DC locals/DC natives who stayed in DC after the riots are low income?

You're quick to take offense. Nowhere did anyone say everyone who lived here after the riots is low income. PP mentioned that gentrifiers displaced the low income people and I asked what do we call these low income people who displaced the previous residents. Knock the chip off your shoulder.

[Anonymous]

Well my grandmother was neither high income or low income because she is now dead.
So I guess that makes her no income.
She did however pay only $10,000 USD for her rowhouse.
It was later sold for God only knows how much.
The money from the sale was later split by her 4 children (one of whom is my father)
I am just one of several grandchildren so I did not receive one single dime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There aren't enough gentrifiers in my neighborhood in NE.
Plenty of drug dealing and moped riding hoodies though. Can we also trade one of the 5 liquor stores in 2 blocks for a Starbucks? Pretty please??

i hope this is sarcasm

Not one sentence was sarcastic. Do you need clarification on anything? Gentrification is coming very slowly in my neck of the woods (Brentwood).

+100. Gentrification is one funny word, in that it tries hard to give some negative connotations to something THAT IS CLEARLY POSITIVE.

LOL, I'm glad the upper-middle class white male has identified himself in this thread.

Nope, there couldn't possibly be a downside to gentrification to any person! It's all positive! Yaaaaay, and you get a jumbo mortgage, and you get one too, and here - you can also have a jumbo mortgage! JUMBOs 4 EVERYONE!!!!!

1) Dear racist b*tch, why do you infer I'm white? (Nope, fyi)

2) Yep, upper-middle class now, thanks to hard and smart work since immigrating into the US. I assume you had the luxury of learning English since birth, and also benefited from the infrastructure of one of the richest countries in the world, yet still see yourself as a loser...Sorry, my friend, that has much more to do with yourself than with gentrification

3) Something can be CLEARLY POSITIVE as a whole yet have negative consequences to some people. Think taxes, a new road, charter schools, cars, the Internet, an Irish pub...learn how to think...or, well, thank God you'll be gentrified out of DC.

Did you go off your meds today?

Tell me, what exactly do you know about meds, and why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I hate gentrified DC" OP is boring.

Agreed. OP, your whining is really tiresome.

And before you assume this comment is coming from one of the gentrifiers you so rant about, I'm a 4th generation Washingtonian. And not the upper NW kind. Born at Cafritz (that was east of the river, in case you're unfamiliar).

Plenty of the changes in DC have been positive, but you're too much of a misanthrope to see it. Rock on with your bad self, though.

Are you a Lady of Rage fan?
Did you know she is originally from Farmville VA?

I love the original Greenfront in Farmville. Bought most of my rugs and dining room furniture there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There aren't enough gentrifiers in my neighborhood in NE.
Plenty of drug dealing and moped riding hoodies though. Can we also trade one of the 5 liquor stores in 2 blocks for a Starbucks? Pretty please??

i hope this is sarcasm

Not one sentence was sarcastic. Do you need clarification on anything? Gentrification is coming very slowly in my neck of the woods (Brentwood).

+100. Gentrification is one funny word, in that it tries hard to give some negative connotations to something THAT IS CLEARLY POSITIVE.

"Gentrification" describes urban renewal that involves an influx of middle and upper middle class people that displaces lower middle class and low income people. Whether it's a positive thing often depends on your perspective. Early adopter gentrifiers often reap the benefits of cheap housing costs, but they have to also live with the negative aspects of living in area with a lot of poverty (crime, few amenities, etc.). When businesses start moving in, housing prices go up, making it difficult for low income people (some of whom have lived in the neighborhood for generations, who may own their homes, etc.) to continue to afford to live there. Sometimes the money being thrown at low income home owners by developers is just too good to pass up.

Having amenities and lower crime is not a bad thing, in and of itself. When those things come at the cost of forcing out all the people that used to live in an area, many people do not think it's a good thing.

So what do you call these low income people who displaced the previous set of middle class people (many of them white who were forced to sell their homes for far less than the value prior to the riots) after the riots?

So now all DC locals/DC natives who stayed in DC after the riots are low income?

You're quick to take offense. Nowhere did anyone say everyone who lived here after the riots is low income. PP mentioned that gentrifiers displaced the low income people and I asked what do we call these low income people who displaced the previous residents. Knock the chip off your shoulder.

The low income people who replaced (not displaced) the previous owners were able to buy or rent in areas of the city previously not available to them when white flight occurred among middle class city residents in the 1960s. It was call block busting and it was very effective and pulled down prices.

[Anonymous]

Bike lanes are boring? Are roads boring too? How about buses? Or sidewalks? Are they also boring?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OMG RIGHT??? Who needs another 1 bedroom rental for $2200?

Everyone barks about sustainability. Nothing is more green than density. Fewer people in a smaller space, consuming fewer resources.


More NIMBY BS on this board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bike lanes are boring? Are roads boring too? How about buses? Or sidewalks? Are they also boring?

Of course they are boring, we don't live in Sweden, you know?

Riots, murder, dismal schools, garbage, those were the fun times!