Schools cause PoP to leave Petworth

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are seeing the transition of the "Hipster" -- which Prince represents -- into sameness. Relax, it happens to the best of us, of every era: the beatnik, the original hippie, punk, goth, glam, 90's raver...now we're seeing the D.C. gentrifiers wake up into their midlife crises. I'm simply glad, thank god, to recognize the beginning of the death knell of skinny jeans, skinny ties, and very much hopefully the Paul Bunyan beards. Beards can't go outta style fast enough.

This! Also, down with the plaid shirts, Harry Potter glasses and Fedoras. Oh, let's not forget lop-sided men's haircuts with one side shaved.

You're forgetting how the world works. For every 30-something who moves out of Petworth to get better schools and less crime for his children, there is another 20-something who moves in. Whatever appearance fad those 20-somethings adopt will be the next thing you hate. If you want to lessen the hate, you need to adjust your own attitude, and not wait for the world to adjust for you.

And FWIW, here is a picture of the PoP from 2009. I'm not a follower of the blog, but he really doesn't look anything like the ridiculous caricature you're trying to draw. In fact, he looks like a pretty normal guy who you might see living in Tenleytown or Cleveland Park.

You'r forgetting how the world works, love. 20 something hipsters are priced out. They can't move in behind 30 somethings, unless the property turns into a shit hole group house. Real estate is too costly.

What's wrong w/ group home in the city? Most cities are multi-unit. As DC continues to grow this will happen more and more often.

[Anonymous]

Dan would be laughing if he read this. He is the least hipster guy ever.

[Anonymous]

Nothing wrong with group homes, don't let their Ward 3 attitudes get you down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dan would be laughing if he read this. He is the least hipster guy ever.

Uh. Don't you think he's reading this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dan would be laughing if he read this. He is the least hipster guy ever.

Plenty of Deadheads who went to Grateful Dead shows didn't look like Deadheads. As the trend died, they started going to Hootie and the Blowfish shows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wonder how NW is going to be able to fit all the families who arrive at the same realization PoP did when school gets real for their kids.

NW schools won't be able to. The comment about Murch is a case in point. School is huge now. They are stretching the capacity of the lot to build a school to fit all of the kids that are there.

And even as more IB students enroll, DCPS faces political pressure not to reduce out of boundary slots. So you wind up with quite ercrowded schools west of the park, while seats sit empty elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You'll all missing my point. As I said, you can disagree with my view that he might as well have moved to N. Arlington/Bethesda. But to delete the post? Really? Lame as fuck.

Right, and that's what we are doing, disagreeing with your view. Are we not allowed to do that?

I don't care what he chooses to delete from his own website. I do care when people spread biased and inaccurate views about my neighborhood just to prove your own hipness.

I totally care that he deletes posts that merely disagree with his opinion. For the casual reader, it gives a completely skewed sense of "the community"'s feelings and point of view.

He tries to pretend he's a "journalist," but he relies a whole hell of a lot on just posting press releases--and skewing the comments to be in line with his point of view is selling false pretenses.

I wish more people would see behind the curtain on him. But I am guessing that, despite his efforts, his move to the Van Ness area--one of the most soulless parts of the city, even for upper NW--is the beginning of the end of PoPville, even if it takes a while. (Two little kids will eventually get in the way, too.)

You clearly know nothing about the neighborhood. If by "soulless" you mean lack of trendy restaurants, OK, but there is a lot of community spirit. Just spend some time walking around and you'll run into kids, families, older people, dogs, etc. Just this week we were eating dinner on the patio of Guapo's (yes, I know you think Guapo's is horrible) and we chatted with two neighbors walking by, then ran into a family from school walking to Blue Moo, then got home and met our new neighbors who just moved in with kids. It took us an extra hour to get home just because we kept running into people we knew.

Trendy coffee shops and hipster bars is not what gives a community a "soul." It is the people who live there, and we are more concerned with hanging out and being friendly then with agonizing over the lack of new sushi joints. Meanwhile, my friend who lives in Columbia Heights and actually sends his kids to the local school barely knows anyone on his block and never interacts with schoolmates outside of school.

I'm laughing that you think I know nothing about that neighborhood.

And "Van Ness" does tend to refer to a very specific stretch of Connecticut Avenue, right by the--gasp!--Van Ness Metro station. That area has been *soulless* for 40 years now.

Well fine if that's how you want to define "Van Ness", but then your point is moot because that's not where he moved. He moved to the neighborhood with houses between the Van Ness Metro and Tenleytown metro, call it whatever you want. He doesn't live above the Giant.

Isn't living above the Giant supposed to be cool? That's how Cathedral Commons is being marketed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You'r forgetting how the world works, love. 20 something hipsters are priced out. They can't move in behind 30 somethings, unless the property turns into a shit hole group house. Real estate is too costly.

Of course I understand real estate prices in Petworth have increased over time, chunky buns. I'm sure the next crop of 20-somethings will find less expensive parts of Petworth, or other similar neighborhoods to gentrify. My point is that trying to claim that PoP's move represents the death of the 20-something hipster is short-sighted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here at DCUM, the criticism of the newest wave of hipster gentrifiers has always been they're too weak-willed to stay in their "transitioning" neighborhoods a little while after they become parents. Rather than work hard to make the neighborhood more school-age-friendly, they bolt for the suburbs. So, the self-anointed "Prince" of Petworth did essentially the same thing by moving to a longtime white enclave in D.C.; perhaps he believes his blog can continue despite his latest carpetbaggery; we will see. But the criticism of him and his choices are appropriate, considering the context of longtime criticism of gentrifiers who do exactly the same thing. Pray tell, what makes the "Prince" so different that it is inappropriate to point out what looks to be his self-evident sameness?

Lemmings gonna lemming, far as I can tell.

This post hit the nail on the head. They move to "transitioning" neighborhoods, drive tax rates and home prices up so that old timers cannot afford them, and then move when "real life" starts. So typical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here at DCUM, the criticism of the newest wave of hipster gentrifiers has always been they're too weak-willed to stay in their "transitioning" neighborhoods a little while after they become parents. Rather than work hard to make the neighborhood more school-age-friendly, they bolt for the suburbs. So, the self-anointed "Prince" of Petworth did essentially the same thing by moving to a longtime white enclave in D.C.; perhaps he believes his blog can continue despite his latest carpetbaggery; we will see. But the criticism of him and his choices are appropriate, considering the context of longtime criticism of gentrifiers who do exactly the same thing. Pray tell, what makes the "Prince" so different that it is inappropriate to point out what looks to be his self-evident sameness?

Lemmings gonna lemming, far as I can tell.

This post hit the nail on the head. They move to "transitioning" neighborhoods, drive tax rates and home prices up so that old timers cannot afford them, and then move when "real life" starts. So typical.

Don't forget they also improve those neighborhoods - more amenities, less crime, cleaner streets, etc. Bastards!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here at DCUM, the criticism of the newest wave of hipster gentrifiers has always been they're too weak-willed to stay in their "transitioning" neighborhoods a little while after they become parents. Rather than work hard to make the neighborhood more school-age-friendly, they bolt for the suburbs. So, the self-anointed "Prince" of Petworth did essentially the same thing by moving to a longtime white enclave in D.C.; perhaps he believes his blog can continue despite his latest carpetbaggery; we will see. But the criticism of him and his choices are appropriate, considering the context of longtime criticism of gentrifiers who do exactly the same thing. Pray tell, what makes the "Prince" so different that it is inappropriate to point out what looks to be his self-evident sameness? Lemmings gonna lemming, far as I can tell.

This post hit the nail on the head. They move to "transitioning" neighborhoods, drive tax rates and home prices up so that old timers cannot afford them, and then move when "real life" starts. So typical.

Sounds like misplaced schadenfreude to me.

[Anonymous]

"Schadenfreude" means joy at another's misfortune. No one's feeling joy that the Prince is leaving; and neither is Prince experiencing misfortune. In fact, he is much more privileged than many people who live in his old neighborhood. No, the DCUM comments display different emotions than that.

For me, it is amusement at Prince's decision, mixed in with sadness for other young parents who live in his neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You'r forgetting how the world works, love. 20 something hipsters are priced out. They can't move in behind 30 somethings, unless the property turns into a shit hole group house. Real estate is too costly.

Of course I understand real estate prices in Petworth have increased over time, chunky buns. I'm sure the next crop of 20-somethings will find less expensive parts of Petworth, or other similar neighborhoods to gentrify. My point is that trying to claim that PoP's move represents the death of the 20-something hipster is short-sighted.

Actually, a group house of 20-somethings just moved in around the corner from my petworth home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here at DCUM, the criticism of the newest wave of hipster gentrifiers has always been they're too weak-willed to stay in their "transitioning" neighborhoods a little while after they become parents. Rather than work hard to make the neighborhood more school-age-friendly, they bolt for the suburbs. So, the self-anointed "Prince" of Petworth did essentially the same thing by moving to a longtime white enclave in D.C.; perhaps he believes his blog can continue despite his latest carpetbaggery; we will see. But the criticism of him and his choices are appropriate, considering the context of longtime criticism of gentrifiers who do exactly the same thing. Pray tell, what makes the "Prince" so different that it is inappropriate to point out what looks to be his self-evident sameness? Lemmings gonna lemming, far as I can tell.

This post hit the nail on the head. They move to "transitioning" neighborhoods, drive tax rates and home prices up so that old timers cannot afford them, and then move when "real life" starts. So typical.

And that explains all the bitterness here.

No, they don't move to "transitioning" neighborhoods to drive up tax rates and force old timers out. They move to neighborhoods that they can afford. He moved to Petworth because that was what he could afford with his 20-something single salary. He's now married with a little one and another little one on the way and 2 incomes, and a house that increased in value. He can now afford Van Ness and the good schools that come with the neighborhood. How can you anyone be angry about that? They would do the same for their family, if they could.

Oh right, it's the same people who feel entitlted to living in expensive urban neighborhoods that they can't afford.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Schadenfreude" means joy at another's misfortune. No one's feeling joy that the Prince is leaving; and neither is Prince experiencing misfortune. In fact, he is much more privileged than many people who live in his old neighborhood. No, the DCUM comments display different emotions than that.

For me, it is amusement at Prince's decision, mixed in with sadness for other young parents who live in his neighborhood.

That's why I call it "misplaced." You and others seem to relish his supposed "failure" to stay ideologically true to some set of hipster-gentrifier values that you want to ascribe to him.

It sounds to me like he's just a guy who made a reasonable decision about where to live when he was younger, and a similarly reasonable decision about where to live now that he has children in school. Like anyone else who leaves a neighborhood they called home for 10-15 years, I suspect he's experiencing a mixture of sadness at leaving but excitement for the future. His move just isn't the grand political & cultural statement you and others seem to want to make of it.