Is It the Beginning of the End for Suburbia

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:gain, it's a hallmark of whiny suburban America that we think things in the very near future will be driven by what "everyone will want". Not "everyone" wanted to move out of the city in the 70s. Tough shit. Clarendon is already not particularly "suburban". There's a lot of blather about how Reston Town Center or Tysons are going to manage to become more walkable, but they keep fucking it up.

To paraphrase Trotsky, sometimes war is interested in you.

What?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, just to address your point "presuming they even want to": you seem to be laboring under the sophomoric conceit that everyone's going to get exactly what they want in the years to come. There were a lot of middle-class folks who would've loved to raise kids in the city back in the 70s, 80s, and 90s but because of cultural and economic forces, couldn't. Welcome to the 21st century. The way things are going, in 10-20 years, folks will be moving back into the city for the schools.

and you're laboring under the sophomoric conceit that everyone will want to move into the city. Many may want more walkable communities, but that doesn't mean everyone wants Dupont Circle or SoHo. Reston Town Center or Clarendon might be sufficiently friendly for their desires.

Again, it's a hallmark of whiny suburban America that we think things in the very near future will be driven by what "everyone will want". Not "everyone" wanted to move out of the city in the 70s. Tough shit. Clarendon is already not particularly "suburban". There's a lot of blather about how Reston Town Center or Tysons are going to manage to become more walkable, but they keep fucking it up.

To paraphrase Trotsky, sometimes war is interested in you.

Better to be in a city. There you get what you get and that's all that you get. That's why everyone is breathless with excitement when the city finally puts in a dog park, a place to bike, or (oh please oh please) a Trader Joe's - in other words the things suburbia takes for granted.

I don't know why some of these posters are predicting the rise of urban living. They will be the first one to picket if it ever happens because it would require the very thing they are so proud of - density. The only way to put more people in DC is to build upward.

[Anonymous]

It's not really true that upward needs to be the next step, though I'm not necessarily opposed. Density in most neighborhoods is actually surprisingly low. I think it might be better to continue pushing the boundaries of the gentrified neighborhoods (with transit support) before building up much more. Many sections of DC have a lot in common with ghost towns. Lots more people fit.

A couple of misconceptions that surfaced earlier in the thread:

1) Plenty of families with two kids live in 2-bedroom apartments (condos or co-ops), and it's an increasingly popular choice. In my co-op building, we're all in our 30s or 40s (not Millenials), many of us parents with school-age children, and wouldn't dream of moving our families further out, or even to a less interesting neighborhood fairly nearby. Of course, most of us come from denser cities and think this this is a pretty normal amount of space.

2) Someone said DC can only hold 500k people. First of all, we have 600k at the moment, but it was around 800k at its height, maybe 1950-ish. And that was with fairly low density as major cities go-- with relatively few apartment buildings and a lot of SFHs, large row houses, and empty areas not even developed for residential use. There's really plenty of room to grow, just maybe not around PP's Farragut Square office or something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not really true that upward needs to be the next step, though I'm not necessarily opposed. Density in most neighborhoods is actually surprisingly low. I think it might be better to continue pushing the boundaries of the gentrified neighborhoods (with transit support) before building up much more. Many sections of DC have a lot in common with ghost towns. Lots more people fit.

A couple of misconceptions that surfaced earlier in the thread:

1) Plenty of families with two kids live in 2-bedroom apartments (condos or co-ops), and it's an increasingly popular choice. In my co-op building, we're all in our 30s or 40s (not Millenials), many of us parents with school-age children, and wouldn't dream of moving our families further out, or even to a less interesting neighborhood fairly nearby. Of course, most of us come from denser cities and think this this is a pretty normal amount of space.

2) Someone said DC can only hold 500k people. First of all, we have 600k at the moment, but it was around 800k at its height, maybe 1950-ish. And that was with fairly low density as major cities go-- with relatively few apartment buildings and a lot of SFHs, large row houses, and empty areas not even developed for residential use. There's really plenty of room to grow, just maybe not around PP's Farragut Square office or something.

of course DC can easily hold another 250K people. hopefully it will. but what will be the growth of the metro area over the next 25 years? I'm guessing more than that.

[Anonymous]

The metro area is 5.6 million people. The District can never make a dent in that.

The city's larger population in 1950 was working class families crammed into small apartments. People aren't living like that anymore.

You may think that neighborhoods with SFH and large row houses represent an "opportunity" for growth, but you can bet the residents there don't. Apparently you haven't been around this town for long. Up does not mean taller than your building. Up means taller than the existing structures.

As for the popularity of 2 child families in 2 bedroom apartments, I am sure there are some families doing it. But there is a steady stream of families moving out to the suburbs at the birth of the second child. They just keep coming. Same with the families that hit an educational brick wall when their kids are middle-school age. Saving 60,000 a year on tuition for two kids fills up a gas tank more than a few times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The metro area is 5.6 million people. The District can never make a dent in that.

The city's larger population in 1950 was working class families crammed into small apartments. People aren't living like that anymore.

You may think that neighborhoods with SFH and large row houses represent an "opportunity" for growth, but you can bet the residents there don't. Apparently you haven't been around this town for long. Up does not mean taller than your building. Up means taller than the existing structures.

As for the popularity of 2 child families in 2 bedroom apartments, I am sure there are some families doing it. But there is a steady stream of families moving out to the suburbs at the birth of the second child. They just keep coming. Same with the families that hit an educational brick wall when their kids are middle-school age. Saving 60,000 a year on tuition for two kids fills up a gas tank more than a few times.

No, there was never much of that in DC, where land and space has (until recently) been cheap, even 19th century laborers had "cottages", and many of the uber-expensive row houses of today were once owned by working class families. It was because the presently boarded up properties in too much of the city were once occupied.

As far as "people living like that now", I'd say that rising property prices have pushed urban middle class families into smaller spaces. That rowhouse once owned by a blue collar family could now be subdivided into 3 or 4 $500K+ apartments. And yes, they're quite likely to be occupied by families using the public schools. No gas tanks required 'round here, and demographers will tell you that the hemorrhage to the suburbs has slowed.

Not sure what to make of your qualifications of the word "up", since I explained that step 1 would be to fill vacant properties in vacated neighborhoods. "Up" is only imperative, at this point, in previously low-rise neighborhoods around Metro stations. Yes, I know what CP and Tenleytown have to say about that, since they're not clever enough to know which end they're wiping. That's why urbanists regard those neighborhoods with appropriate disdain and argue against their residents' ass-backwardness.

[Anonymous]

7:59, I still don't see any public MS/HS options other than Wilson/Deal. Not everyone will get into Banneker or School without Walls, and not everyone wants to risk sending their kid to some charter school that's liable to shut down in a year.

Come on, surely there's a large group of parents just aching to send their kid to some of the other DCPS high schools.

Some folks would rather commute 30 minutes, save $60k a year in private school tuition, and have more than 800 square feet of living space. Yeah, I know there's an endless supply of $300k+ people who don't care, but you know what? There's a lot more people making $100-$300k who still need places to live.

And while DC's population growth is actually occurring, the exurbs are still growing like crazy (this is a result of not everyone working in DC and of some folks working in DC wanting to live the Lansdowne life.) You and I might think they're crazy, but not all exurban stories are the same. They may have even lost their job out in Reston and had to take a job in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The metro area is 5.6 million people. The District can never make a dent in that.

The city's larger population in 1950 was working class families crammed into small apartments. People aren't living like that anymore.

You may think that neighborhoods with SFH and large row houses represent an "opportunity" for growth, but you can bet the residents there don't. Apparently you haven't been around this town for long. Up does not mean taller than your building. Up means taller than the existing structures.

As for the popularity of 2 child families in 2 bedroom apartments, I am sure there are some families doing it. But there is a steady stream of families moving out to the suburbs at the birth of the second child. They just keep coming. Same with the families that hit an educational brick wall when their kids are middle-school age. Saving 60,000 a year on tuition for two kids fills up a gas tank more than a few times.

No, there was never much of that in DC, where land and space has (until recently) been cheap, even 19th century laborers had "cottages", and many of the uber-expensive row houses of today were once owned by working class families. It was because the presently boarded up properties in too much of the city were once occupied.

As far as "people living like that now", I'd say that rising property prices have pushed urban middle class families into smaller spaces. That rowhouse once owned by a blue collar family could now be subdivided into 3 or 4 $500K+ apartments. And yes, they're quite likely to be occupied by families using the public schools. No gas tanks required 'round here, and demographers will tell you that the hemorrhage to the suburbs has slowed.

Not sure what to make of your qualifications of the word "up", since I explained that step 1 would be to fill vacant properties in vacated neighborhoods. "Up" is only imperative, at this point, in previously low-rise neighborhoods around Metro stations. Yes, I know what CP and Tenleytown have to say about that, since they're not clever enough to know which end they're wiping. That's why urbanists regard those neighborhoods with appropriate disdain and argue against their residents' ass-backwardness.

The numbers don't support your plan.

The latest DCRA report shows about 900 vacated properties (Class 3). Even if you include the 300 or so Class 4 blighted properties, that gives you max 1200 properties. Even if by magic they could contain an average of 100 residents, that only gives you space back for 120,000 people.

The constraint on the city's capacity is building height, whether it is the maximum height of apartment/condo complexes or the number of properties zoned as single family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The metro area is 5.6 million people. The District can never make a dent in that.

The city's larger population in 1950 was working class families crammed into small apartments. People aren't living like that anymore.

You may think that neighborhoods with SFH and large row houses represent an "opportunity" for growth, but you can bet the residents there don't. Apparently you haven't been around this town for long. Up does not mean taller than your building. Up means taller than the existing structures.

As for the popularity of 2 child families in 2 bedroom apartments, I am sure there are some families doing it. But there is a steady stream of families moving out to the suburbs at the birth of the second child. They just keep coming. Same with the families that hit an educational brick wall when their kids are middle-school age. Saving 60,000 a year on tuition for two kids fills up a gas tank more than a few times.

You misunderstand the point of the thread. You're still stuck in this 1970s conception of what is "the city" and what is "suburbia". Of course DC can't hold everyone in the metro area. That's just fatuous. The reality is, going forward, the successful areas are going to increasingly be urban ones. Whether in DC proper, or in increasingly urbanized Bethesda, or Silver Spring, or Alexandria, etc, etc... This will be increasingly at the expense of exurbia, where those who are either desparately poor, or who came late to the game and are chained to a bad mortgage in some exurban cul-de-sac.

DC will never be Manhattan, but everything inside the Beltway will increasingly look like, say, Chicago. And the areas *outside* the Beltway will increasingly look like the slums of suburban Paris. The fact that the de facto political party of exurbia (the Republicans) are increasingly morphing into a force that seems bent on the destruction of suburbia was something that's certainly come as a surprise to me. As a city dweller, I'm totally in favor of radically reduced federal taxes. The amount of federal dollars we collectively spend on maintaining suburban infrastructure is mind-blowing. If the GOP is successful in "starving the beast" and reining in federalism, America of the 21st century will start to look more and more like America of the 19th century, only without a significant percentage of farm employment.

Small government means the death of suburbia, pure and simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The metro area is 5.6 million people. The District can never make a dent in that.

The city's larger population in 1950 was working class families crammed into small apartments. People aren't living like that anymore.

You may think that neighborhoods with SFH and large row houses represent an "opportunity" for growth, but you can bet the residents there don't. Apparently you haven't been around this town for long. Up does not mean taller than your building. Up means taller than the existing structures.

As for the popularity of 2 child families in 2 bedroom apartments, I am sure there are some families doing it. But there is a steady stream of families moving out to the suburbs at the birth of the second child. They just keep coming. Same with the families that hit an educational brick wall when their kids are middle-school age. Saving 60,000 a year on tuition for two kids fills up a gas tank more than a few times.

No, there was never much of that in DC, where land and space has (until recently) been cheap, even 19th century laborers had "cottages", and many of the uber-expensive row houses of today were once owned by working class families. It was because the presently boarded up properties in too much of the city were once occupied.

As far as "people living like that now", I'd say that rising property prices have pushed urban middle class families into smaller spaces. That rowhouse once owned by a blue collar family could now be subdivided into 3 or 4 $500K+ apartments. And yes, they're quite likely to be occupied by families using the public schools. No gas tanks required 'round here, and demographers will tell you that the hemorrhage to the suburbs has slowed.

Not sure what to make of your qualifications of the word "up", since I explained that step 1 would be to fill vacant properties in vacated neighborhoods. "Up" is only imperative, at this point, in previously low-rise neighborhoods around Metro stations. Yes, I know what CP and Tenleytown have to say about that, since they're not clever enough to know which end they're wiping. That's why urbanists regard those neighborhoods with appropriate disdain and argue against their residents' ass-backwardness.

This is the key element I think PP is missing. When folks point out that the suburbs are growing faster than the cities, the point you want to make is that absolute growth isn't important. What's important is the effects of marginal change. Of course the suburbs are growing faster than the city. This is one of the fastest growing regions in the country. People are moving here. And as PP pointed out, not everyone can live in the city. But the demographic trend is that more and more younger families are choosing to stay. And that puts well-documented pressure on the housing market. Which drives poor folks into the suburbs. Which puts downward pressure on segments of the suburban housing market. Which makes living in the city (or in one of the islands of affluence in the suburbs, of course). It's a virtuous cycle--or the opposite if you're living in one of the suburban neighborhoods in decline.

So, yes, the suburbs are growing faster than the city. But it's not a competition for bodies--quite the opposite. While the suburbs are growing faster than the urban area, suburban poverty is growing significantly faster. *That's* the metric to look at. It's a competition for middle-class mindshare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Better to be in a city. There you get what you get and that's all that you get. That's why everyone is breathless with excitement when the city finally puts in a dog park, a place to bike, or (oh please oh please) a Trader Joe's - in other words the things suburbia takes for granted.

This is obviously someone utterly clueless about the big demographic changes rocking American society. I live in the city. When I want to get to Trader Joes (or Wegmanns, or whatever) I get in my car, drive out to the burbs, and load up. Takes about 15-20 minutes to get there.

When your average suburbanite wants to get to "their" Trader Joes, they get in their car, drive out to the burbs, and load up. Takes about 15-20 minutes to get there.

Congratulations on it being "your" grocery store, though. Woo hoo!

Heh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The metro area is 5.6 million people. The District can never make a dent in that.

The city's larger population in 1950 was working class families crammed into small apartments. People aren't living like that anymore.

You may think that neighborhoods with SFH and large row houses represent an "opportunity" for growth, but you can bet the residents there don't. Apparently you haven't been around this town for long. Up does not mean taller than your building. Up means taller than the existing structures.

As for the popularity of 2 child families in 2 bedroom apartments, I am sure there are some families doing it. But there is a steady stream of families moving out to the suburbs at the birth of the second child. They just keep coming. Same with the families that hit an educational brick wall when their kids are middle-school age. Saving 60,000 a year on tuition for two kids fills up a gas tank more than a few times.

You misunderstand the point of the thread. You're still stuck in this 1970s conception of what is "the city" and what is "suburbia". Of course DC can't hold everyone in the metro area. That's just fatuous. The reality is, going forward, the successful areas are going to increasingly be urban ones. Whether in DC proper, or in increasingly urbanized Bethesda, or Silver Spring, or Alexandria, etc, etc... This will be increasingly at the expense of exurbia, where those who are either desparately poor, or who came late to the game and are chained to a bad mortgage in some exurban cul-de-sac.

DC will never be Manhattan, but everything inside the Beltway will increasingly look like, say, Chicago. And the areas *outside* the Beltway will increasingly look like the slums of suburban Paris. The fact that the de facto political party of exurbia (the Republicans) are increasingly morphing into a force that seems bent on the destruction of suburbia was something that's certainly come as a surprise to me. As a city dweller, I'm totally in favor of radically reduced federal taxes. The amount of federal dollars we collectively spend on maintaining suburban infrastructure is mind-blowing. If the GOP is successful in "starving the beast" and reining in federalism, America of the 21st century will start to look more and more like America of the 19th century, only without a significant percentage of farm employment.

Small government means the death of suburbia, pure and simple.

Chicago is chock full of suburbs. If your current view of reality is not accurate, how good can your forecast be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Better to be in a city. There you get what you get and that's all that you get. That's why everyone is breathless with excitement when the city finally puts in a dog park, a place to bike, or (oh please oh please) a Trader Joe's - in other words the things suburbia takes for granted.

This is obviously someone utterly clueless about the big demographic changes rocking American society. I live in the city. When I want to get to Trader Joes (or Wegmanns, or whatever) I get in my car, drive out to the burbs, and load up. Takes about 15-20 minutes to get there.

When your average suburbanite wants to get to "their" Trader Joes, they get in their car, drive out to the burbs, and load up. Takes about 15-20 minutes to get there.

Congratulations on it being "your" grocery store, though. Woo hoo!

Heh.

If we are both driving, then the point of this thread is moot.

[Anonymous]

if you (the anti-suburb poster) are agreeing that the growth in the metro area will take place outside of the city in the suburbs, then what is the point of this thread? of course the closer-in suburbs will continue to move towards higher density, edge cities or town centers like Reston and Tysons Corner will continue to become more urban, and the metro area itself will continue to sprawl further out. So what was the point here again? Will my one acre in Vienna 10 minutes from Reston and Tysons be worth less or more?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The metro area is 5.6 million people. The District can never make a dent in that.

The city's larger population in 1950 was working class families crammed into small apartments. People aren't living like that anymore.

You may think that neighborhoods with SFH and large row houses represent an "opportunity" for growth, but you can bet the residents there don't. Apparently you haven't been around this town for long. Up does not mean taller than your building. Up means taller than the existing structures.

As for the popularity of 2 child families in 2 bedroom apartments, I am sure there are some families doing it. But there is a steady stream of families moving out to the suburbs at the birth of the second child. They just keep coming. Same with the families that hit an educational brick wall when their kids are middle-school age. Saving 60,000 a year on tuition for two kids fills up a gas tank more than a few times.

You misunderstand the point of the thread. You're still stuck in this 1970s conception of what is "the city" and what is "suburbia". Of course DC can't hold everyone in the metro area. That's just fatuous. The reality is, going forward, the successful areas are going to increasingly be urban ones. Whether in DC proper, or in increasingly urbanized Bethesda, or Silver Spring, or Alexandria, etc, etc... This will be increasingly at the expense of exurbia, where those who are either desparately poor, or who came late to the game and are chained to a bad mortgage in some exurban cul-de-sac.

DC will never be Manhattan, but everything inside the Beltway will increasingly look like, say, Chicago. And the areas *outside* the Beltway will increasingly look like the slums of suburban Paris. The fact that the de facto political party of exurbia (the Republicans) are increasingly morphing into a force that seems bent on the destruction of suburbia was something that's certainly come as a surprise to me. As a city dweller, I'm totally in favor of radically reduced federal taxes. The amount of federal dollars we collectively spend on maintaining suburban infrastructure is mind-blowing. If the GOP is successful in "starving the beast" and reining in federalism, America of the 21st century will start to look more and more like America of the 19th century, only without a significant percentage of farm employment.

Small government means the death of suburbia, pure and simple.

Funny since DC is a net recipient of Federal dollars. Most of suburban infrastructure is state-funded in case you didn't notice.

But the bigger issue here is that you are redefining suburbia to fit your argument. Alexandria is now "not suburbia?" Why, because it has a retail shopping district that you like? Have you ever looked at a map? Silver Spring is now not suburbia because it has a business district? Suburbia has always had business centers - from office parks to major employment campuses to concentrated medium-high rise like Bailey's Crossroads - which BTW is more dense than DC.

If you keep whittling away to the definition until you are left with Prince William and Loudoun, then the argument is meaningless.