D.C. has the highest ‘intensity’ of gentrification of any U.S. city, study says

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of AAs haven’t made out like a bandit, their opportunity for generational wealth via real estate was actually ripped from them. Plenty of forclosures and developer low balls are responsible for the houses transferring ownership. I know of a few cases some years back of elderly people losing their home for not being able to pay their rising property taxes on time because of a limited income. The paper actually did a story on a widow who lost his house due to a tax balance less than $2 in a hot neighborhood.

How many of these versus the ones who did make a lot of money selling grandma's old house? Hmm? A few cases of people who didn't make money doesn't mean anything. Look, millions of whites lost houses to foreclosure too, or live in dying mill towns or Appalachia where their house is worth peanuts and people ignore those when talking about generational wealth via real estate. Right now in DC there's a big shift of black homeowners selling to white homeowners either themselves or via flippers and most are walking away with plenty of money.

I suspect the number of real "old-timers" and their descendants making out like bandits is actually lower than those getting screwed. If you can't take the sale money and find something close to comfortable in the D.C. Region, then you're getting screwed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Come to South Arlington. Your HHI will get you a nice house. No gentrifying here because of zoning and a very pro-affordable housing board. We have blocks and blocks of committed affordable housing (not that you will qualify) and lower income market rate affordable apartments. And much more on the way.

That is where we live and its HOT HOT HOT! Its been great to spend our some of our 20s and early 30s as n Arlington's scrappy neighbor. Had all the perks, commute, shopping, restaurants, bars as the north minus the air of pretension at half the price. The area is changing rapidly though, and becoming more and more like the north. We need to move to something larger as our family expands and the housing stock that used to be in the 600s-800s is now 800- $1m+ and no longer affordable. Sadly s arlington wasn't immune to gentrification, I guess it was only a matter of time. We absolutely love Hill East and it is suffering the same fate. We will either stay in our 1200sq ft or move to PG County.

People living in a scrappy "wealth adjacent" area waiting for it to change takes away these little unicorn neighborhoods. I wish people just lived there because of how awesome it is, not because they think theyll stay for a few years and leave with a satchel of cash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this happens all over the country as areas redevelop and become more desirable

it's really just a class thing

I wish there were more middle class and higher black folks coming back to DC vs PG county to make this less of a racial issue

We're here! Many of us in the upper 16th St. area. I'd say, however, that residents in that area are trending more UMC than true middle class. Most middle class folks I know, regardless of race, are buying in areas like close-in Silver Spring.

Agree with the article that there is a need for a lot more affordable housing across the city. I wish the NIMBYs would accept that changes in density are necessary so that the entire city doesn't eventually become a rich enclave.

But the density isn't offering affordable housing. Chopping up a row home into 4 individual levels and listing at $700k isn't "affordable".

why is kicking poor people out a problem, poor isn't a protected class

Supply and demand. Sure, chopping up one row house won’t fix the problem.

But if you chop up 5000 row houses and make 20,000 new units, THAT will bring the prices down - you’d have those condos selling for more like 400-500k.

(Fixing the DC housing problem requires lots of steps: more supply, more subsidized affordable, zoning changes, pop ups, higher buildings, disempowering the NIMBYs. It will take a lot. We have a huge problem. But the biggest of all those problems is limited supply because of crappy zoning regs.)

[Anonymous]

why is kicking poor people out a problem, poor isn't a protected class

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of AAs haven’t made out like a bandit, their opportunity for generational wealth via real estate was actually ripped from them. Plenty of forclosures and developer low balls are responsible for the houses transferring ownership. I know of a few cases some years back of elderly people losing their home for not being able to pay their rising property taxes on time because of a limited income. The paper actually did a story on a widow who lost his house due to a tax balance less than $2 in a hot neighborhood.

why is people not knowing how to manage something somebody somebody else fault

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the folks who say that we have to build more/denser housing supply in the form of large buildings, but I think that we also need to find ways to build more housing that's similar in character to rowhouses/small multifamily. Not townhomes that are still in car-dependent separated developments (what's built now), but actual walkable and transit-oriented mixed use urbanism. The problem is that zoning makes it almost impossible to increase density in a lot of suburbs or in more suburban neighborhoods, and there's no land to build anymore of this kind of housing in already-urban neighborhoods. So a lot of lower-income folks, many of whom don't have cars or can't afford them, are displaced into neighborhoods that are built around cars in a way that systematically reduces their access to social services, social networks, etc.

Apartment/large building living is a very poor substitute for even attached home living for a lot of people. Clearly more people will need to choose to live in large buildings in the future if we want to keep close-in areas affordable. Not everyone will be able to afford to live in as close proximity to downtown as they might prefer. But even setting aside the loss of proximity associated with displacement by gentrification, there is a real loss of lifestyle associated with with being displaced from classic rowhouse neighborhoods. Meanwhile, the supply of that kind of housing is actually declining pretty rapidly, leading attached house prices to rapidly outpace inflation with little end in sight. It's not hard to understand why even people who don't appear to be financially harmed by gentrification might be unhappy about that loss of lifestyle.

Correct. We need both denser housing around transit, and denser housing in current single-family more suburban areas.
We also need denser housing in row home areas.
Steps we should take:
- Make it easier to build high around metro stops. We’re actually doing ok at this in some areas of DC. But in too many cases local opposition blocks construction or reduces height.
- Upzone single family suburban areas to build more densely
- upzone row house areas to allow pop ups or replacing two story row houses with 4 story row houses.

Answer is really: build more housing everywhere. More more more. Upzone everywhere. There is a huge supply crunch.

Oh, hi developer! Please don't include me in your "we need" pop-ups. Also, please stop with the phone calls and mailings. I'm not selling my house to you.
However, there's a big artery 2 blocks away, that happens to be very close to metro, and it's full of boarded 2-story buildings already zoned to be massive multi-units. So let get on that first - build all the 6 story buildings 2-5 blocks from metro that can be built.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of AAs haven’t made out like a bandit, their opportunity for generational wealth via real estate was actually ripped from them. Plenty of forclosures and developer low balls are responsible for the houses transferring ownership. I know of a few cases some years back of elderly people losing their home for not being able to pay their rising property taxes on time because of a limited income. The paper actually did a story on a widow who lost his house due to a tax balance less than $2 in a hot neighborhood.

I know of a grandparent at my kids school who didn't know her husband got a reverse mortgage until he passed. She was forced to sell and she couldn't afford the mortgage.

No "real" money in the bank for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the folks who say that we have to build more/denser housing supply in the form of large buildings, but I think that we also need to find ways to build more housing that's similar in character to rowhouses/small multifamily. Not townhomes that are still in car-dependent separated developments (what's built now), but actual walkable and transit-oriented mixed use urbanism. The problem is that zoning makes it almost impossible to increase density in a lot of suburbs or in more suburban neighborhoods, and there's no land to build anymore of this kind of housing in already-urban neighborhoods. So a lot of lower-income folks, many of whom don't have cars or can't afford them, are displaced into neighborhoods that are built around cars in a way that systematically reduces their access to social services, social networks, etc.

Apartment/large building living is a very poor substitute for even attached home living for a lot of people. Clearly more people will need to choose to live in large buildings in the future if we want to keep close-in areas affordable. Not everyone will be able to afford to live in as close proximity to downtown as they might prefer. But even setting aside the loss of proximity associated with displacement by gentrification, there is a real loss of lifestyle associated with with being displaced from classic rowhouse neighborhoods. Meanwhile, the supply of that kind of housing is actually declining pretty rapidly, leading attached house prices to rapidly outpace inflation with little end in sight. It's not hard to understand why even people who don't appear to be financially harmed by gentrification might be unhappy about that loss of lifestyle.

Correct. We need both denser housing around transit, and denser housing in current single-family more suburban areas.
We also need denser housing in row home areas.
Steps we should take:
- Make it easier to build high around metro stops. We’re actually doing ok at this in some areas of DC. But in too many cases local opposition blocks construction or reduces height.
- Upzone single family suburban areas to build more densely
- upzone row house areas to allow pop ups or replacing two story row houses with 4 story row houses.

Answer is really: build more housing everywhere. More more more. Upzone everywhere. There is a huge supply crunch.

Oh, hi developer! Please don't include me in your "we need" pop-ups. Also, please stop with the phone calls and mailings. I'm not selling my house to you.
However, there's a big artery 2 blocks away, that happens to be very close to metro, and it's full of boarded 2-story buildings already zoned to be massive multi-units. So let get on that first - build all the 6 story buildings 2-5 blocks from metro that can be built.

PP here. Not a developer. At all. Just a YIMBY.

If we want lower priced homes in the DMV there is one big step we can take: upzoning, which will increase supply. Supply supply supply is the biggest problem. You don’t get to complain about pop ups and also complain about high prices or rents. Because they’re two sides of the same coin.
Height is still a problem in DC- look at the building near eastern market that got two floors chopped off of it because abutters complained to the zoning board.

ggwash.org
City lab
Strongtowns.org
All have more good things to read.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the folks who say that we have to build more/denser housing supply in the form of large buildings, but I think that we also need to find ways to build more housing that's similar in character to rowhouses/small multifamily. Not townhomes that are still in car-dependent separated developments (what's built now), but actual walkable and transit-oriented mixed use urbanism. The problem is that zoning makes it almost impossible to increase density in a lot of suburbs or in more suburban neighborhoods, and there's no land to build anymore of this kind of housing in already-urban neighborhoods. So a lot of lower-income folks, many of whom don't have cars or can't afford them, are displaced into neighborhoods that are built around cars in a way that systematically reduces their access to social services, social networks, etc.

Apartment/large building living is a very poor substitute for even attached home living for a lot of people. Clearly more people will need to choose to live in large buildings in the future if we want to keep close-in areas affordable. Not everyone will be able to afford to live in as close proximity to downtown as they might prefer. But even setting aside the loss of proximity associated with displacement by gentrification, there is a real loss of lifestyle associated with with being displaced from classic rowhouse neighborhoods. Meanwhile, the supply of that kind of housing is actually declining pretty rapidly, leading attached house prices to rapidly outpace inflation with little end in sight. It's not hard to understand why even people who don't appear to be financially harmed by gentrification might be unhappy about that loss of lifestyle.

Correct. We need both denser housing around transit, and denser housing in current single-family more suburban areas.
We also need denser housing in row home areas.
Steps we should take:
- Make it easier to build high around metro stops. We’re actually doing ok at this in some areas of DC. But in too many cases local opposition blocks construction or reduces height.
- Upzone single family suburban areas to build more densely
- upzone row house areas to allow pop ups or replacing two story row houses with 4 story row houses.

Answer is really: build more housing everywhere. More more more. Upzone everywhere. There is a huge supply crunch.

Oh, hi developer! Please don't include me in your "we need" pop-ups. Also, please stop with the phone calls and mailings. I'm not selling my house to you.
However, there's a big artery 2 blocks away, that happens to be very close to metro, and it's full of boarded 2-story buildings already zoned to be massive multi-units. So let get on that first - build all the 6 story buildings 2-5 blocks from metro that can be built.

PP here. Not a developer. At all. Just a YIMBY.

If we want lower priced homes in the DMV there is one big step we can take: upzoning, which will increase supply. Supply supply supply is the biggest problem. You don’t get to complain about pop ups and also complain about high prices or rents. Because they’re two sides of the same coin.
Height is still a problem in DC- look at the building near eastern market that got two floors chopped off of it because abutters complained to the zoning board.

ggwash.org
City lab
Strongtowns.org
All have more good things to read.

Can someone explain why we need unfettered population growth in DC? Not everyone who wants to graduate college & move to DC deserves a low-priced apartment in a great part of town.
I love that the GGWash crowd will decry the concept of "induced demand" when it comes to building roads and highways, but refuses to see development as a type of "induced demand" that lures people to the DC region. We have enough jobs, and enough people. Let the prices rise so that demand cools, and we can preserve the current quality of life with turning the city into Manhattan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the folks who say that we have to build more/denser housing supply in the form of large buildings, but I think that we also need to find ways to build more housing that's similar in character to rowhouses/small multifamily. Not townhomes that are still in car-dependent separated developments (what's built now), but actual walkable and transit-oriented mixed use urbanism. The problem is that zoning makes it almost impossible to increase density in a lot of suburbs or in more suburban neighborhoods, and there's no land to build anymore of this kind of housing in already-urban neighborhoods. So a lot of lower-income folks, many of whom don't have cars or can't afford them, are displaced into neighborhoods that are built around cars in a way that systematically reduces their access to social services, social networks, etc.

Apartment/large building living is a very poor substitute for even attached home living for a lot of people. Clearly more people will need to choose to live in large buildings in the future if we want to keep close-in areas affordable. Not everyone will be able to afford to live in as close proximity to downtown as they might prefer. But even setting aside the loss of proximity associated with displacement by gentrification, there is a real loss of lifestyle associated with with being displaced from classic rowhouse neighborhoods. Meanwhile, the supply of that kind of housing is actually declining pretty rapidly, leading attached house prices to rapidly outpace inflation with little end in sight. It's not hard to understand why even people who don't appear to be financially harmed by gentrification might be unhappy about that loss of lifestyle.

Correct. We need both denser housing around transit, and denser housing in current single-family more suburban areas.
We also need denser housing in row home areas.
Steps we should take:
- Make it easier to build high around metro stops. We’re actually doing ok at this in some areas of DC. But in too many cases local opposition blocks construction or reduces height.
- Upzone single family suburban areas to build more densely
- upzone row house areas to allow pop ups or replacing two story row houses with 4 story row houses.

Answer is really: build more housing everywhere. More more more. Upzone everywhere. There is a huge supply crunch.

Oh, hi developer! Please don't include me in your "we need" pop-ups. Also, please stop with the phone calls and mailings. I'm not selling my house to you.
However, there's a big artery 2 blocks away, that happens to be very close to metro, and it's full of boarded 2-story buildings already zoned to be massive multi-units. So let get on that first - build all the 6 story buildings 2-5 blocks from metro that can be built.

PP here. Not a developer. At all. Just a YIMBY.

If we want lower priced homes in the DMV there is one big step we can take: upzoning, which will increase supply. Supply supply supply is the biggest problem. You don’t get to complain about pop ups and also complain about high prices or rents. Because they’re two sides of the same coin.
Height is still a problem in DC- look at the building near eastern market that got two floors chopped off of it because abutters complained to the zoning board.

ggwash.org
City lab
Strongtowns.org
All have more good things to read.

Can someone explain why we need unfettered population growth in DC? Not everyone who wants to graduate college & move to DC deserves a low-priced apartment in a great part of town.
I love that the GGWash crowd will decry the concept of "induced demand" when it comes to building roads and highways, but refuses to see development as a type of "induced demand" that lures people to the DC region. We have enough jobs, and enough people. Let the prices rise so that demand cools, and we can preserve the current quality of life with turning the city into Manhattan.

Speaking as an economist, there are two problems, really variants on the same problem. Both of them arise from the fact that allowing housing prices to increase is a transfer of wealth from potential homeowners to existing homeowners.

The first problem is about productive efficiency. If our hypothetical goal is to maximize the productive output of our economy, then we want the people to live in DC who have a comparative advantage in combining their own labor and knowledge with other local inputs (the labor and knowledge of others who live here, natural resources, etc.) to produce output. Of course, some of our local inputs exist in many other cities, but many of them just don't, especially because we're the seat of the Federal government which is fixed here. In a highly stylized model of the economy, when housing supply can adjust so that prices remain constant, people move to the city if they would prefer it to their next best alternative city. That means that the people who are unusually good at making use of DC's resources generally move here, because they can make more money here. But when prices rise because housing supply is fixed, some of those people instead decide to move to places were housing costs are lower, even though they would actually be more productive if they chose to live here. They are, in essence, misallocated. So, allowing housing prices to increase rather than building more housing is really not just a transfer of wealth to current owners, it actually reduces the amount of output in the economy, i.e. the amount of wealth to go around. This is what economists call a deadweight loss.

The second problem is intergenerational, and it's in some ways a more insidious problem. Letting housing prices rise is a wealth transfer from younger people to older people, because existing owners tend to be older. Younger people are still in a position to develop their human capital (e.g. education) in order to take best advantage of the opportunities available to them. But, by making housing more expensive in cities like DC, you make it less attractive for those young people to get the education that would make them more productive in places like DC in the future. Later on, when those people are older, they are less productive because of their lower human capital, and it is much more difficult for them to adjust. So, in effect, high housing costs in places like DC can have very long-lasting impacts.

There is some pretty good suggestive evidence that this is part of what's going on in America with our growing urban-rural divide and our declining rates of migration. In essence, it's so expensive to break into a city like DC that people just stay home, where they make much less money and they have fewer opportunities. That's a potentially large loss, because some of those rural kids might otherwise do great things one day. The problem here is potentially even worse, because DC has such a unique economy that can benefit from unique talents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of AAs haven’t made out like a bandit, their opportunity for generational wealth via real estate was actually ripped from them. Plenty of forclosures and developer low balls are responsible for the houses transferring ownership. I know of a few cases some years back of elderly people losing their home for not being able to pay their rising property taxes on time because of a limited income. The paper actually did a story on a widow who lost his house due to a tax balance less than $2 in a hot neighborhood.

How many of these versus the ones who did make a lot of money selling grandma's old house? Hmm? A few cases of people who didn't make money doesn't mean anything. Look, millions of whites lost houses to foreclosure too, or live in dying mill towns or Appalachia where their house is worth peanuts and people ignore those when talking about generational wealth via real estate. Right now in DC there's a big shift of black homeowners selling to white homeowners either themselves or via flippers and most are walking away with plenty of money.

I suspect the number of real "old-timers" and their descendants making out like bandits is actually lower than those getting screwed. If you can't take the sale money and find something close to comfortable in the D.C. Region, then you're getting screwed.

Probably not the case at all. I daresay most are people who have walked away with a fair amount of money. You just want to buy into perpetuating the myth that AAs are always being screwed no matter what happens so you hold up one or two examples as representative of what's happening to everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the folks who say that we have to build more/denser housing supply in the form of large buildings, but I think that we also need to find ways to build more housing that's similar in character to rowhouses/small multifamily. Not townhomes that are still in car-dependent separated developments (what's built now), but actual walkable and transit-oriented mixed use urbanism. The problem is that zoning makes it almost impossible to increase density in a lot of suburbs or in more suburban neighborhoods, and there's no land to build anymore of this kind of housing in already-urban neighborhoods. So a lot of lower-income folks, many of whom don't have cars or can't afford them, are displaced into neighborhoods that are built around cars in a way that systematically reduces their access to social services, social networks, etc.

Apartment/large building living is a very poor substitute for even attached home living for a lot of people. Clearly more people will need to choose to live in large buildings in the future if we want to keep close-in areas affordable. Not everyone will be able to afford to live in as close proximity to downtown as they might prefer. But even setting aside the loss of proximity associated with displacement by gentrification, there is a real loss of lifestyle associated with with being displaced from classic rowhouse neighborhoods. Meanwhile, the supply of that kind of housing is actually declining pretty rapidly, leading attached house prices to rapidly outpace inflation with little end in sight. It's not hard to understand why even people who don't appear to be financially harmed by gentrification might be unhappy about that loss of lifestyle.

Correct. We need both denser housing around transit, and denser housing in current single-family more suburban areas.
We also need denser housing in row home areas.
Steps we should take:
- Make it easier to build high around metro stops. We’re actually doing ok at this in some areas of DC. But in too many cases local opposition blocks construction or reduces height.
- Upzone single family suburban areas to build more densely
- upzone row house areas to allow pop ups or replacing two story row houses with 4 story row houses.

Answer is really: build more housing everywhere. More more more. Upzone everywhere. There is a huge supply crunch.

Oh, hi developer! Please don't include me in your "we need" pop-ups. Also, please stop with the phone calls and mailings. I'm not selling my house to you.
However, there's a big artery 2 blocks away, that happens to be very close to metro, and it's full of boarded 2-story buildings already zoned to be massive multi-units. So let get on that first - build all the 6 story buildings 2-5 blocks from metro that can be built.

PP here. Not a developer. At all. Just a YIMBY.

If we want lower priced homes in the DMV there is one big step we can take: upzoning, which will increase supply. Supply supply supply is the biggest problem. You don’t get to complain about pop ups and also complain about high prices or rents. Because they’re two sides of the same coin.
Height is still a problem in DC- look at the building near eastern market that got two floors chopped off of it because abutters complained to the zoning board.

ggwash.org
City lab
Strongtowns.org
All have more good things to read.

Can someone explain why we need unfettered population growth in DC? Not everyone who wants to graduate college & move to DC deserves a low-priced apartment in a great part of town.
I love that the GGWash crowd will decry the concept of "induced demand" when it comes to building roads and highways, but refuses to see development as a type of "induced demand" that lures people to the DC region. We have enough jobs, and enough people. Let the prices rise so that demand cools, and we can preserve the current quality of life with turning the city into Manhattan.

Speaking as an economist, there are two problems, really variants on the same problem. Both of them arise from the fact that allowing housing prices to increase is a transfer of wealth from potential homeowners to existing homeowners.

The first problem is about productive efficiency. If our hypothetical goal is to maximize the productive output of our economy, then we want the people to live in DC who have a comparative advantage in combining their own labor and knowledge with other local inputs (the labor and knowledge of others who live here, natural resources, etc.) to produce output. Of course, some of our local inputs exist in many other cities, but many of them just don't, especially because we're the seat of the Federal government which is fixed here. In a highly stylized model of the economy, when housing supply can adjust so that prices remain constant, people move to the city if they would prefer it to their next best alternative city. That means that the people who are unusually good at making use of DC's resources generally move here, because they can make more money here. But when prices rise because housing supply is fixed, some of those people instead decide to move to places were housing costs are lower, even though they would actually be more productive if they chose to live here. They are, in essence, misallocated. So, allowing housing prices to increase rather than building more housing is really not just a transfer of wealth to current owners, it actually reduces the amount of output in the economy, i.e. the amount of wealth to go around. This is what economists call a deadweight loss.

The second problem is intergenerational, and it's in some ways a more insidious problem. Letting housing prices rise is a wealth transfer from younger people to older people, because existing owners tend to be older. Younger people are still in a position to develop their human capital (e.g. education) in order to take best advantage of the opportunities available to them. But, by making housing more expensive in cities like DC, you make it less attractive for those young people to get the education that would make them more productive in places like DC in the future. Later on, when those people are older, they are less productive because of their lower human capital, and it is much more difficult for them to adjust. So, in effect, high housing costs in places like DC can have very long-lasting impacts.

There is some pretty good suggestive evidence that this is part of what's going on in America with our growing urban-rural divide and our declining rates of migration. In essence, it's so expensive to break into a city like DC that people just stay home, where they make much less money and they have fewer opportunities. That's a potentially large loss, because some of those rural kids might otherwise do great things one day. The problem here is potentially even worse, because DC has such a unique economy that can benefit from unique talents.

That's DC specific, along with a few other big cities. But not a national problem. Most American cities are far more affordable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where did all the African Americans go? I keep wondering this.

Are they going to PGC? Where are they going?

One thing that bugs me a lot about articles about gentrification is when they talk about residents being forced out or displaced and are missing some simple demographics...people are not immortal. When I moved to Petworth the vast majority of my neighbors were African Americans who owned their homes and were elderly. A lot of them had owned their homes solince the 1960s or 70s. Many of those neighbors have since passed away, and some have moved into nursing homes or in with their kids. The gentrification is happening here mainly because of the aging of the neighborhood. Nearly all of these houses are gutted and flipped when they sell.

Well those elderly people have kids and other relatives who are no longer welcome in their community. Their churches and businesses are closing and new amenities pop up that cater to YOU and not them. Couple that with YOU calling the cops when they are sitting on their stoops listening to music like they've done for generations and they know they're really unwelcome, real fast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

We are getting increased density in my neighborhood by the Potomac Ave metro as is appropriate but what worries me is that it seems as if so little of it is affordable housing. Oh, and you all will find this amusing: A huge project going up right across from the metro is called the Blackbird and its website boasts of "bohemian soul" meeting "button touch access" and it features quotes from Hunter S. Thompson and Biggie Smalls, pictures of Tom Waits, Johnny Cash, Muhammad Ali, and Aretha Franklin. So not only are they trying to make this place look hip (love my neighborhood but it's not Columbia Heights) but they are marketing it to people who consider themselves hip and want luxury at the same time.....eh, isn't that a bit of a contradiction? Here's the website: https://www.blackbirdsedc.com/ This is so weird.

Ugh. Wish I hadn't read this. But not surprised, either. Everything's for sale, isn't it?

Yes, and I'm thinking that the people who are alive who are featured on that website - Tom Waits, Henry Rollins, for example - must be getting paid for their name and image being used. It certainly makes me think less of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where did all the African Americans go? I keep wondering this.

Are they going to PGC? Where are they going?

One thing that bugs me a lot about articles about gentrification is when they talk about residents being forced out or displaced and are missing some simple demographics...people are not immortal. When I moved to Petworth the vast majority of my neighbors were African Americans who owned their homes and were elderly. A lot of them had owned their homes solince the 1960s or 70s. Many of those neighbors have since passed away, and some have moved into nursing homes or in with their kids. The gentrification is happening here mainly because of the aging of the neighborhood. Nearly all of these houses are gutted and flipped when they sell.

Well those elderly people have kids and other relatives who are no longer welcome in their community. Their churches and businesses are closing and new amenities pop up that cater to YOU and not them. Couple that with YOU calling the cops when they are sitting on their stoops listening to music like they've done for generations and they know they're really unwelcome, real fast.

The churches are moving out to where most of their congregants now live and are making good money on a building that they did not have the funds to upkeep. No one is closing them down.