DMV if feds leave

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pre-COVID many Federal agencies were already moving out to the suburbs.

The agency you might be referring to is DOE, who are moving to a shared office space model and will cut their office footprint by 50% as a result. They are giving up an entire building in SW.

The continued WFH model should certainly favor suburbs, because they provide more living space. Policies that would favor increasing density and decreasing living space would seem to be directly oppositional to this trend.

There is a lot of hubris behind people you see who smugly claim DC to be “recession proof”. It also tells a lot about them because recessions affect a lot of workers in DC. In any event, a recession is most definitely coming and in this one, I don’t think DC will fare as well as past recessions. Following the GFC in particular, jobless college grads flocked to DC with hope of finding work. However, the geography of work is just not the same anymore so we will be unlikely to see a repeat.

OP, I think you are missing the fact that plenty of people live in the city because they enjoy city living. That's why they pay a premium for living there. Of course, some people live in the city because the commute is close, but most people live in the city because they like city life. That won't change with WFH.

I think the places that will be hurt will be close-in surburbs like Arlington and Bethesda. People live there because they want to live in a suburb, but want a short commute. With WFH, and commute not a factor, those people can live in a million different suburbs.

This is really funny. You have surely never been to Arlington or Bethesda.

What do you mean PP? I go to Arlington and Bethesda multiple times per week, and my impression is that the key reasons people live there are that they want to live in a suburb with a short commute to their jobs.

First off, there are more high wage private sector jobs in Arlington than DC, hint Amazon. Second, Bethesda has the lowest commercial vacancy rate in the whole region. There are more people out and about in both places on a random weekday than you will find in downtown DC. You are under a false impression that these are bedroom communities, because you are young and haven’t lived in the area long, but they exist in their own right. Just check the morning rush hour entries at the Bethesda Metro station pre-pandemic, it’s barely used. People live in these areas are because they are business centers with jobs, they enjoy the quality of life on offer and appreciate some aspects of life urbanism but with convenience to SFHs and without the dysfunction.

The bedroom communities for DC in the suburbs are actually a further out in the places where Federal employees can afford to live, e.g. Rockville or Manasas. And the vast, overwhelming majority of people who live in the suburbs also work in the suburbs and never come to DC at all. Get it?

PP, I am the person you are responding to, and you and I are making the exact same point! -- people live in suburbs like Arlington and Bethesda because they want a suburban lifestyle that is close to their jobs, allowing them to avoid a long commute. Perfectly reasonable decision. But that means that a shift to WFH will allow people to no longer worry about commute, and instead choose from any of the countless suburbs in the area. In contrast, for people who want to live in the city because they like the city, they are just going to stay in DC.

So people in the suburbs are unique in that they prioritize their commute (to the suburbs) but people in the city do not? This makes zero sense.

WFH expands the possibilities for people to live, which will continue to be a net drag for the city’s population. No one sets their goal to raise a toddler in a 2 BD apartment if they don’t have to. Increasing household formation will continue to lead to population loss. Sure parts of the city will continue to be attractive to single young people. But the need for large numbers of single young people to have to physically come to DC for work is diminishing as a direct result of WFH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pre-COVID many Federal agencies were already moving out to the suburbs.

The agency you might be referring to is DOE, who are moving to a shared office space model and will cut their office footprint by 50% as a result. They are giving up an entire building in SW.

The continued WFH model should certainly favor suburbs, because they provide more living space. Policies that would favor increasing density and decreasing living space would seem to be directly oppositional to this trend.

There is a lot of hubris behind people you see who smugly claim DC to be “recession proof”. It also tells a lot about them because recessions affect a lot of workers in DC. In any event, a recession is most definitely coming and in this one, I don’t think DC will fare as well as past recessions. Following the GFC in particular, jobless college grads flocked to DC with hope of finding work. However, the geography of work is just not the same anymore so we will be unlikely to see a repeat.

OP, I think you are missing the fact that plenty of people live in the city because they enjoy city living. That's why they pay a premium for living there. Of course, some people live in the city because the commute is close, but most people live in the city because they like city life. That won't change with WFH.

I think the places that will be hurt will be close-in surburbs like Arlington and Bethesda. People live there because they want to live in a suburb, but want a short commute. With WFH, and commute not a factor, those people can live in a million different suburbs.

This is really funny. You have surely never been to Arlington or Bethesda.

What do you mean PP? I go to Arlington and Bethesda multiple times per week, and my impression is that the key reasons people live there are that they want to live in a suburb with a short commute to their jobs.

First off, there are more high wage private sector jobs in Arlington than DC, hint Amazon. Second, Bethesda has the lowest commercial vacancy rate in the whole region. There are more people out and about in both places on a random weekday than you will find in downtown DC. You are under a false impression that these are bedroom communities, because you are young and haven’t lived in the area long, but they exist in their own right. Just check the morning rush hour entries at the Bethesda Metro station pre-pandemic, it’s barely used. People live in these areas are because they are business centers with jobs, they enjoy the quality of life on offer and appreciate some aspects of life urbanism but with convenience to SFHs and without the dysfunction.

The bedroom communities for DC in the suburbs are actually a further out in the places where Federal employees can afford to live, e.g. Rockville or Manasas. And the vast, overwhelming majority of people who live in the suburbs also work in the suburbs and never come to DC at all. Get it?

PP, I am the person you are responding to, and you and I are making the exact same point! -- people live in suburbs like Arlington and Bethesda because they want a suburban lifestyle that is close to their jobs, allowing them to avoid a long commute. Perfectly reasonable decision. But that means that a shift to WFH will allow people to no longer worry about commute, and instead choose from any of the countless suburbs in the area. In contrast, for people who want to live in the city because they like the city, they are just going to stay in DC.

So people in the suburbs are unique in that they prioritize their commute (to the suburbs) but people in the city do not? This makes zero sense.

WFH expands the possibilities for people to live, which will continue to be a net drag for the city’s population. No one sets their goal to raise a toddler in a 2 BD apartment if they don’t have to. Increasing household formation will continue to lead to population loss. Sure parts of the city will continue to be attractive to single young people. But the need for large numbers of single young people to have to physically come to DC for work is diminishing as a direct result of WFH.

PP, I think what you are having trouble with is that lots of people just like living in cities. I get it, you may not, which is fine. But lots of people do. And if you want to live in a major city in the mid-Atlantic region, you basically have one choice - you can live in DC.

Lots of people like living in suburbs, and this is also fine. If you want to live in a suburb in the mid-Atlantic, you literally have hundreds of choices. Close-in suburbs like Arlington and Bethesda are particularly attractive to many people because they offer both suburban living and short commutes to jobs. But with more work from home, the value of a short commute declines. So the close-in suburbs are at unique risk because they lose their advantage of the hundreds of other suburbs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pre-COVID many Federal agencies were already moving out to the suburbs.

The agency you might be referring to is DOE, who are moving to a shared office space model and will cut their office footprint by 50% as a result. They are giving up an entire building in SW.

The continued WFH model should certainly favor suburbs, because they provide more living space. Policies that would favor increasing density and decreasing living space would seem to be directly oppositional to this trend.

There is a lot of hubris behind people you see who smugly claim DC to be “recession proof”. It also tells a lot about them because recessions affect a lot of workers in DC. In any event, a recession is most definitely coming and in this one, I don’t think DC will fare as well as past recessions. Following the GFC in particular, jobless college grads flocked to DC with hope of finding work. However, the geography of work is just not the same anymore so we will be unlikely to see a repeat.

OP, I think you are missing the fact that plenty of people live in the city because they enjoy city living. That's why they pay a premium for living there. Of course, some people live in the city because the commute is close, but most people live in the city because they like city life. That won't change with WFH.

I think the places that will be hurt will be close-in surburbs like Arlington and Bethesda. People live there because they want to live in a suburb, but want a short commute. With WFH, and commute not a factor, those people can live in a million different suburbs.

This is really funny. You have surely never been to Arlington or Bethesda.

What do you mean PP? I go to Arlington and Bethesda multiple times per week, and my impression is that the key reasons people live there are that they want to live in a suburb with a short commute to their jobs.

First off, there are more high wage private sector jobs in Arlington than DC, hint Amazon. Second, Bethesda has the lowest commercial vacancy rate in the whole region. There are more people out and about in both places on a random weekday than you will find in downtown DC. You are under a false impression that these are bedroom communities, because you are young and haven’t lived in the area long, but they exist in their own right. Just check the morning rush hour entries at the Bethesda Metro station pre-pandemic, it’s barely used. People live in these areas are because they are business centers with jobs, they enjoy the quality of life on offer and appreciate some aspects of life urbanism but with convenience to SFHs and without the dysfunction.

The bedroom communities for DC in the suburbs are actually a further out in the places where Federal employees can afford to live, e.g. Rockville or Manasas. And the vast, overwhelming majority of people who live in the suburbs also work in the suburbs and never come to DC at all. Get it?

PP, I am the person you are responding to, and you and I are making the exact same point! -- people live in suburbs like Arlington and Bethesda because they want a suburban lifestyle that is close to their jobs, allowing them to avoid a long commute. Perfectly reasonable decision. But that means that a shift to WFH will allow people to no longer worry about commute, and instead choose from any of the countless suburbs in the area. In contrast, for people who want to live in the city because they like the city, they are just going to stay in DC.

So people in the suburbs are unique in that they prioritize their commute (to the suburbs) but people in the city do not? This makes zero sense.

WFH expands the possibilities for people to live, which will continue to be a net drag for the city’s population. No one sets their goal to raise a toddler in a 2 BD apartment if they don’t have to. Increasing household formation will continue to lead to population loss. Sure parts of the city will continue to be attractive to single young people. But the need for large numbers of single young people to have to physically come to DC for work is diminishing as a direct result of WFH.

PP, I think what you are having trouble with is that lots of people just like living in cities. I get it, you may not, which is fine. But lots of people do. And if you want to live in a major city in the mid-Atlantic region, you basically have one choice - you can live in DC.

Lots of people like living in suburbs, and this is also fine. If you want to live in a suburb in the mid-Atlantic, you literally have hundreds of choices. Close-in suburbs like Arlington and Bethesda are particularly attractive to many people because they offer both suburban living and short commutes to jobs. But with more work from home, the value of a short commute declines. So the close-in suburbs are at unique risk because they lose their advantage of the hundreds of other suburbs.

17,000 less people liked living in DC in 2021. Decided they had other preferences. Go figure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there's a change to a republican administration they will likely yank telework for most feds just to be a-holes, so I wouldn't hold my breath.

Why though? It greatly reduces needless big govt spending on office space that you don't need and have to pay for the heat, cooling, and electric bills for.

To play to their base. Because they believe that feds are lazy and will do even less at home. Trump significantly cut telework while in office.

[Anonymous]

Bethesda and Arlington are urban and the people who live there “live in the city.” It’s just not as dense as downtown DC. Then again, Spring Valley DC isn’t as dense as downtown Bethesda.

This notion that Bethesda and Arlington are “the suburbs” needs to die. They haven’t been suburban in probably 10-15 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pre-COVID many Federal agencies were already moving out to the suburbs.

The agency you might be referring to is DOE, who are moving to a shared office space model and will cut their office footprint by 50% as a result. They are giving up an entire building in SW.

The continued WFH model should certainly favor suburbs, because they provide more living space. Policies that would favor increasing density and decreasing living space would seem to be directly oppositional to this trend.

There is a lot of hubris behind people you see who smugly claim DC to be “recession proof”. It also tells a lot about them because recessions affect a lot of workers in DC. In any event, a recession is most definitely coming and in this one, I don’t think DC will fare as well as past recessions. Following the GFC in particular, jobless college grads flocked to DC with hope of finding work. However, the geography of work is just not the same anymore so we will be unlikely to see a repeat.

OP, I think you are missing the fact that plenty of people live in the city because they enjoy city living. That's why they pay a premium for living there. Of course, some people live in the city because the commute is close, but most people live in the city because they like city life. That won't change with WFH.

I think the places that will be hurt will be close-in surburbs like Arlington and Bethesda. People live there because they want to live in a suburb, but want a short commute. With WFH, and commute not a factor, those people can live in a million different suburbs.

This is really funny. You have surely never been to Arlington or Bethesda.

What do you mean PP? I go to Arlington and Bethesda multiple times per week, and my impression is that the key reasons people live there are that they want to live in a suburb with a short commute to their jobs.

First off, there are more high wage private sector jobs in Arlington than DC, hint Amazon. Second, Bethesda has the lowest commercial vacancy rate in the whole region. There are more people out and about in both places on a random weekday than you will find in downtown DC. You are under a false impression that these are bedroom communities, because you are young and haven’t lived in the area long, but they exist in their own right. Just check the morning rush hour entries at the Bethesda Metro station pre-pandemic, it’s barely used. People live in these areas are because they are business centers with jobs, they enjoy the quality of life on offer and appreciate some aspects of life urbanism but with convenience to SFHs and without the dysfunction.

The bedroom communities for DC in the suburbs are actually a further out in the places where Federal employees can afford to live, e.g. Rockville or Manasas. And the vast, overwhelming majority of people who live in the suburbs also work in the suburbs and never come to DC at all. Get it?

PP, I am the person you are responding to, and you and I are making the exact same point! -- people live in suburbs like Arlington and Bethesda because they want a suburban lifestyle that is close to their jobs, allowing them to avoid a long commute. Perfectly reasonable decision. But that means that a shift to WFH will allow people to no longer worry about commute, and instead choose from any of the countless suburbs in the area. In contrast, for people who want to live in the city because they like the city, they are just going to stay in DC.

So people in the suburbs are unique in that they prioritize their commute (to the suburbs) but people in the city do not? This makes zero sense.

WFH expands the possibilities for people to live, which will continue to be a net drag for the city’s population. No one sets their goal to raise a toddler in a 2 BD apartment if they don’t have to. Increasing household formation will continue to lead to population loss. Sure parts of the city will continue to be attractive to single young people. But the need for large numbers of single young people to have to physically come to DC for work is diminishing as a direct result of WFH.

PP, I think what you are having trouble with is that lots of people just like living in cities. I get it, you may not, which is fine. But lots of people do. And if you want to live in a major city in the mid-Atlantic region, you basically have one choice - you can live in DC.

Lots of people like living in suburbs, and this is also fine. If you want to live in a suburb in the mid-Atlantic, you literally have hundreds of choices. Close-in suburbs like Arlington and Bethesda are particularly attractive to many people because they offer both suburban living and short commutes to jobs. But with more work from home, the value of a short commute declines. So the close-in suburbs are at unique risk because they lose their advantage of the hundreds of other suburbs.

17,000 less people liked living in DC in 2021. Decided they had other preferences. Go figure.

Sure. But let's see what long-term trends look like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous[b wrote:]Bethesda and Arlington are urban and the people who live there “live in the city.”[/b] It’s just not as dense as downtown DC. Then again, Spring Valley DC isn’t as dense as downtown Bethesda.

This notion that Bethesda and Arlington are “the suburbs” needs to die. They haven’t been suburban in probably 10-15 years.

Funniest thing I've read in weeks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bethesda and Arlington are urban and the people who live there “live in the city.” It’s just not as dense as downtown DC. Then again, Spring Valley DC isn’t as dense as downtown Bethesda.

This notion that Bethesda and Arlington are “the suburbs” needs to die. They haven’t been suburban in probably 10-15 years.

Arlington and Bethesda have barely changed in 10-15 years. Arlington's big change came much earlier. What exactly is dramatically different in these communities in the last decade?

There are urban pockets all over, just like DC is made up of a mix of urban and suburban communities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If there's a change to a republican administration they will likely yank telework for most feds just to be a-holes, so I wouldn't hold my breath.

This.

If the feds stay with their agency, they probably aren't going to / can't move.

Most of the feds I know who can, who are either have a couple years experience or eligible to "retire" after 20 years, are leaving for private industry and 100% telecommute anyhow. Their replacements will probably have to prove they have their butts in seats at some point. Which is why they are leaving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bethesda and Arlington are urban and the people who live there “live in the city.” It’s just not as dense as downtown DC. Then again, Spring Valley DC isn’t as dense as downtown Bethesda.

This notion that Bethesda and Arlington are “the suburbs” needs to die. They haven’t been suburban in probably 10-15 years.

Arlington and Bethesda have barely changed in 10-15 years. Arlington's big change came much earlier. What exactly is dramatically different in these communities in the last decade?

There are urban pockets all over, just like DC is made up of a mix of urban and suburban communities.

Bethesda has not changed in the last decade? It’s fun when people out themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there's a change to a republican administration they will likely yank telework for most feds just to be a-holes, so I wouldn't hold my breath.

Why though? It greatly reduces needless big govt spending on office space that you don't need and have to pay for the heat, cooling, and electric bills for.

To play to their base. Because they believe that feds are lazy and will do even less at home. Trump significantly cut telework while in office.

He was not wrong about that. Contractors do all the work. You could eliminate 87% of fed employees tomorrow and Americans would not notice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there's a change to a republican administration they will likely yank telework for most feds just to be a-holes, so I wouldn't hold my breath.

Why though? It greatly reduces needless big govt spending on office space that you don't need and have to pay for the heat, cooling, and electric bills for.

To play to their base. Because they believe that feds are lazy and will do even less at home. Trump significantly cut telework while in office.

He was not wrong about that. Contractors do all the work. You could eliminate 87% of fed employees tomorrow and Americans would not notice.

Yes they will, because the contractors are usually paid more for the same job. At least at my agency, my coworkers are leaving to become contractors so they can afford to send their kids to college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pre-COVID many Federal agencies were already moving out to the suburbs.

The agency you might be referring to is DOE, who are moving to a shared office space model and will cut their office footprint by 50% as a result. They are giving up an entire building in SW.

The continued WFH model should certainly favor suburbs, because they provide more living space. Policies that would favor increasing density and decreasing living space would seem to be directly oppositional to this trend.

There is a lot of hubris behind people you see who smugly claim DC to be “recession proof”. It also tells a lot about them because recessions affect a lot of workers in DC. In any event, a recession is most definitely coming and in this one, I don’t think DC will fare as well as past recessions. Following the GFC in particular, jobless college grads flocked to DC with hope of finding work. However, the geography of work is just not the same anymore so we will be unlikely to see a repeat.

OP, I think you are missing the fact that plenty of people live in the city because they enjoy city living. That's why they pay a premium for living there. Of course, some people live in the city because the commute is close, but most people live in the city because they like city life. That won't change with WFH.

I think the places that will be hurt will be close-in surburbs like Arlington and Bethesda. People live there because they want to live in a suburb, but want a short commute. With WFH, and commute not a factor, those people can live in a million different suburbs.

This is really funny. You have surely never been to Arlington or Bethesda.

What do you mean PP? I go to Arlington and Bethesda multiple times per week, and my impression is that the key reasons people live there are that they want to live in a suburb with a short commute to their jobs.

First off, there are more high wage private sector jobs in Arlington than DC, hint Amazon. Second, Bethesda has the lowest commercial vacancy rate in the whole region. There are more people out and about in both places on a random weekday than you will find in downtown DC. You are under a false impression that these are bedroom communities, because you are young and haven’t lived in the area long, but they exist in their own right. Just check the morning rush hour entries at the Bethesda Metro station pre-pandemic, it’s barely used. People live in these areas are because they are business centers with jobs, they enjoy the quality of life on offer and appreciate some aspects of life urbanism but with convenience to SFHs and without the dysfunction.

The bedroom communities for DC in the suburbs are actually a further out in the places where Federal employees can afford to live, e.g. Rockville or Manasas. And the vast, overwhelming majority of people who live in the suburbs also work in the suburbs and never come to DC at all. Get it?

PP, I am the person you are responding to, and you and I are making the exact same point! -- people live in suburbs like Arlington and Bethesda because they want a suburban lifestyle that is close to their jobs, allowing them to avoid a long commute. Perfectly reasonable decision. But that means that a shift to WFH will allow people to no longer worry about commute, and instead choose from any of the countless suburbs in the area. In contrast, for people who want to live in the city because they like the city, they are just going to stay in DC.

So people in the suburbs are unique in that they prioritize their commute (to the suburbs) but people in the city do not? This makes zero sense.

WFH expands the possibilities for people to live, which will continue to be a net drag for the city’s population. No one sets their goal to raise a toddler in a 2 BD apartment if they don’t have to. Increasing household formation will continue to lead to population loss. Sure parts of the city will continue to be attractive to single young people. But the need for large numbers of single young people to have to physically come to DC for work is diminishing as a direct result of WFH.

Not true. Also not true: "Everyone wants a single family house on a quarter acre with a white picket fence"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pre-COVID many Federal agencies were already moving out to the suburbs.

The agency you might be referring to is DOE, who are moving to a shared office space model and will cut their office footprint by 50% as a result. They are giving up an entire building in SW.

The continued WFH model should certainly favor suburbs, because they provide more living space. Policies that would favor increasing density and decreasing living space would seem to be directly oppositional to this trend.

There is a lot of hubris behind people you see who smugly claim DC to be “recession proof”. It also tells a lot about them because recessions affect a lot of workers in DC. In any event, a recession is most definitely coming and in this one, I don’t think DC will fare as well as past recessions. Following the GFC in particular, jobless college grads flocked to DC with hope of finding work. However, the geography of work is just not the same anymore so we will be unlikely to see a repeat.

OP, I think you are missing the fact that plenty of people live in the city because they enjoy city living. That's why they pay a premium for living there. Of course, some people live in the city because the commute is close, but most people live in the city because they like city life. That won't change with WFH.

I think the places that will be hurt will be close-in surburbs like Arlington and Bethesda. People live there because they want to live in a suburb, but want a short commute. With WFH, and commute not a factor, those people can live in a million different suburbs.

This is really funny. You have surely never been to Arlington or Bethesda.

What do you mean PP? I go to Arlington and Bethesda multiple times per week, and my impression is that the key reasons people live there are that they want to live in a suburb with a short commute to their jobs.

First off, there are more high wage private sector jobs in Arlington than DC, hint Amazon. Second, Bethesda has the lowest commercial vacancy rate in the whole region. There are more people out and about in both places on a random weekday than you will find in downtown DC. You are under a false impression that these are bedroom communities, because you are young and haven’t lived in the area long, but they exist in their own right. Just check the morning rush hour entries at the Bethesda Metro station pre-pandemic, it’s barely used. People live in these areas are because they are business centers with jobs, they enjoy the quality of life on offer and appreciate some aspects of life urbanism but with convenience to SFHs and without the dysfunction.

The bedroom communities for DC in the suburbs are actually a further out in the places where Federal employees can afford to live, e.g. Rockville or Manasas. And the vast, overwhelming majority of people who live in the suburbs also work in the suburbs and never come to DC at all. Get it?

PP, I am the person you are responding to, and you and I are making the exact same point! -- people live in suburbs like Arlington and Bethesda because they want a suburban lifestyle that is close to their jobs, allowing them to avoid a long commute. Perfectly reasonable decision. But that means that a shift to WFH will allow people to no longer worry about commute, and instead choose from any of the countless suburbs in the area. In contrast, for people who want to live in the city because they like the city, they are just going to stay in DC.

So people in the suburbs are unique in that they prioritize their commute (to the suburbs) but people in the city do not? This makes zero sense.

WFH expands the possibilities for people to live, which will continue to be a net drag for the city’s population. No one sets their goal to raise a toddler in a 2 BD apartment if they don’t have to. Increasing household formation will continue to lead to population loss. Sure parts of the city will continue to be attractive to single young people. But the need for large numbers of single young people to have to physically come to DC for work is diminishing as a direct result of WFH.

PP, I think what you are having trouble with is that lots of people just like living in cities. I get it, you may not, which is fine. But lots of people do. And if you want to live in a major city in the mid-Atlantic region, you basically have one choice - you can live in DC.

Lots of people like living in suburbs, and this is also fine. If you want to live in a suburb in the mid-Atlantic, you literally have hundreds of choices. Close-in suburbs like Arlington and Bethesda are particularly attractive to many people because they offer both suburban living and short commutes to jobs. But with more work from home, the value of a short commute declines. So the close-in suburbs are at unique risk because they lose their advantage of the hundreds of other suburbs.

17,000 less people liked living in DC in 2021. Decided they had other preferences. Go figure.

That is mostly COVID people living in their second homes somewhere and telecommuting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pre-COVID many Federal agencies were already moving out to the suburbs.

The agency you might be referring to is DOE, who are moving to a shared office space model and will cut their office footprint by 50% as a result. They are giving up an entire building in SW.

The continued WFH model should certainly favor suburbs, because they provide more living space. Policies that would favor increasing density and decreasing living space would seem to be directly oppositional to this trend.

There is a lot of hubris behind people you see who smugly claim DC to be “recession proof”. It also tells a lot about them because recessions affect a lot of workers in DC. In any event, a recession is most definitely coming and in this one, I don’t think DC will fare as well as past recessions. Following the GFC in particular, jobless college grads flocked to DC with hope of finding work. However, the geography of work is just not the same anymore so we will be unlikely to see a repeat.

OP, I think you are missing the fact that plenty of people live in the city because they enjoy city living. That's why they pay a premium for living there. Of course, some people live in the city because the commute is close, but most people live in the city because they like city life. That won't change with WFH.

I think the places that will be hurt will be close-in surburbs like Arlington and Bethesda. People live there because they want to live in a suburb, but want a short commute. With WFH, and commute not a factor, those people can live in a million different suburbs.

This is really funny. You have surely never been to Arlington or Bethesda.

What do you mean PP? I go to Arlington and Bethesda multiple times per week, and my impression is that the key reasons people live there are that they want to live in a suburb with a short commute to their jobs.

First off, there are more high wage private sector jobs in Arlington than DC, hint Amazon. Second, Bethesda has the lowest commercial vacancy rate in the whole region. There are more people out and about in both places on a random weekday than you will find in downtown DC. You are under a false impression that these are bedroom communities, because you are young and haven’t lived in the area long, but they exist in their own right. Just check the morning rush hour entries at the Bethesda Metro station pre-pandemic, it’s barely used. People live in these areas are because they are business centers with jobs, they enjoy the quality of life on offer and appreciate some aspects of life urbanism but with convenience to SFHs and without the dysfunction.

The bedroom communities for DC in the suburbs are actually a further out in the places where Federal employees can afford to live, e.g. Rockville or Manasas. And the vast, overwhelming majority of people who live in the suburbs also work in the suburbs and never come to DC at all. Get it?

PP, I am the person you are responding to, and you and I are making the exact same point! -- people live in suburbs like Arlington and Bethesda because they want a suburban lifestyle that is close to their jobs, allowing them to avoid a long commute. Perfectly reasonable decision. But that means that a shift to WFH will allow people to no longer worry about commute, and instead choose from any of the countless suburbs in the area. In contrast, for people who want to live in the city because they like the city, they are just going to stay in DC.

So people in the suburbs are unique in that they prioritize their commute (to the suburbs) but people in the city do not? This makes zero sense.

WFH expands the possibilities for people to live, which will continue to be a net drag for the city’s population. No one sets their goal to raise a toddler in a 2 BD apartment if they don’t have to. Increasing household formation will continue to lead to population loss. Sure parts of the city will continue to be attractive to single young people. But the need for large numbers of single young people to have to physically come to DC for work is diminishing as a direct result of WFH.

PP, I think what you are having trouble with is that lots of people just like living in cities. I get it, you may not, which is fine. But lots of people do. And if you want to live in a major city in the mid-Atlantic region, you basically have one choice - you can live in DC.

Lots of people like living in suburbs, and this is also fine. If you want to live in a suburb in the mid-Atlantic, you literally have hundreds of choices. Close-in suburbs like Arlington and Bethesda are particularly attractive to many people because they offer both suburban living and short commutes to jobs. But with more work from home, the value of a short commute declines. So the close-in suburbs are at unique risk because they lose their advantage of the hundreds of other suburbs.

17,000 less people liked living in DC in 2021. Decided they had other preferences. Go figure.

That is mostly COVID people living in their second homes somewhere and telecommuting.

And missing college students that were taking classes from home instead of living in dorms in DC.