Increasing density drives low-income minorities out of DC, new study shows

[Anonymous]

No one told the Post that people don't say "gentrification" anymore. "Increasing density" is the new term of art.

"In the District, low-income residents are being pushed out of neighborhoods at some of the highest rates in the country, according to the Institute on Metropolitan Opportunity, which sought to track demographic and economic changes in neighborhoods in the 50 largest U.S. cities from 2000 to 2016....

In the Navy Yard neighborhood, about 77 percent of residents were identified as low income in 2000. Sixteen years later, that population dropped to 21 percent.

Most of the people pushed out of these economic hot spots are black and low income, according to the data."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/in-the-district-gentrification-means-widespread-displacement-report-says/2019/04/26/950a0c00-6775-11e9-8985-4cf30147bdca_story.html?outputType=amp

[Anonymous]

Oh well. I assume they find new places to live in PG county, correct? (Can’t read the article behind the paywall, but I’m generally aware of the 20 year long outmigration DC -> PG).

This city proper has become a dramatically better place to live since I arrived at the end of the crack/ Barry years. Dispersal of the concentrated poor into surrounding areas is one important reason why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one told the Post that people don't say "gentrification" anymore. "Increasing density" is the new term of art.

"In the District, low-income residents are being pushed out of neighborhoods at some of the highest rates in the country, according to the Institute on Metropolitan Opportunity, which sought to track demographic and economic changes in neighborhoods in the 50 largest U.S. cities from 2000 to 2016....

In the Navy Yard neighborhood, about 77 percent of residents were identified as low income in 2000. Sixteen years later, that population dropped to 21 percent.

Most of the people pushed out of these economic hot spots are black and low income, according to the data."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/in-the-district-gentrification-means-widespread-displacement-report-says/2019/04/26/950a0c00-6775-11e9-8985-4cf30147bdca_story.html?outputType=amp

How many low-income residents (numbers, not percent) were there in the Navy Yard neighborhood in 2000 and 2016?

It's quite evident that some DCUM-demographic people in DC oppose building more housing in DC. But to hear DCUM-demographic people in DC say that building more housing in DC is bad because it decreases the proportion of DC residents who are black and low-income - well, I need a few stiff drinks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one told the Post that people don't say "gentrification" anymore. "Increasing density" is the new term of art.

"In the District, low-income residents are being pushed out of neighborhoods at some of the highest rates in the country, according to the Institute on Metropolitan Opportunity, which sought to track demographic and economic changes in neighborhoods in the 50 largest U.S. cities from 2000 to 2016....

In the Navy Yard neighborhood, about 77 percent of residents were identified as low income in 2000. Sixteen years later, that population dropped to 21 percent.

Most of the people pushed out of these economic hot spots are black and low income, according to the data."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/in-the-district-gentrification-means-widespread-displacement-report-says/2019/04/26/950a0c00-6775-11e9-8985-4cf30147bdca_story.html?outputType=amp

Mayor Bowser and the Density Bros day that the way to end gentrification is to build lots of dense luxury housing in Ward 3 so gentrifiers don’t have to move to NE and SE.

How many low-income residents (numbers, not percent) were there in the Navy Yard neighborhood in 2000 and 2016?

It's quite evident that some DCUM-demographic people in DC oppose building more housing in DC. But to hear DCUM-demographic people in DC say that building more housing in DC is bad because it decreases the proportion of DC residents who are black and low-income - well, I need a few stiff drinks.

[Anonymous]

Mayor Bowser and the Density Bros day that the way to end gentrification is to build lots of dense luxury housing in Ward 3 so gentrifiers don’t have to move to NE and SE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mayor Bowser and the Density Bros day that the way to end gentrification is to build lots of dense luxury housing in Ward 3 so gentrifiers don’t have to move to NE and SE.

How many more threads do you need to keep saying the same thing? Go out for a bike ride. You'll feel better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mayor Bowser and the Density Bros[b] day that the way to end gentrification is to build lots of dense luxury housing in Ward 3 so gentrifiers don’t have to move to NE and SE.

What???

[Anonymous]

Correlation is not causality. As the author points out, displacement isn't happening on a large scale in nearly any other major city, yet those cities are largely doing the same things to develop as we are. So why is DC actually any different? In my opinion, a couple reasons:

- The MLK riots. Post-1968, large swathes of DC rowhouses and single family homes were considered undesirable to the middle class. The crack epidemic only extended that legacy. Lower-income people moved into those homes, and now lower-income people have been priced out. But unlike other cities that had population declines, DC's economy wasn't very industrial and DC didn't have a commensurate economic decline, it just sprawled. The draw to be close to downtown for commute and amenity reasons has remained pretty constant. So, gentrification of the closest rowhouse neighborhoods to downtown (largely in Ward 6, as the authors note) has basically been the inevitable result of the passage of time and the gradual decline of racist sentiment. The equilibrium of cheap rowhouses next to downtown was sustained only by our history or racism and unrest; it simply can't be maintained in any universe where those forces are not the most salient issues for homebuyers. At least, not without trashing the city. And, it's basically impossible to build more rowhouse construction in neighborhoods this close to downtown, so although building more large condo buildings can help a little bit, it's probably impossible to do enough to keep rowhouses affordable to lower income people.

- The height restriction. All vibrant cities have lots of new apartment and condo construction. But here, that construction is eating up more land, because of the height restriction. That displaces more people.

DC is pretty aggressive with its use if inclusionary zoning techniques, which is good. Although there have been some missteps (e.g. Temple Courts is still an empty lot), a policy of limiting displacement by replacing low-density public housing with higher density development with large set asides to allow current residents to remain is a pretty good one given our options.

Two other things we should do in my opinion. One, we should have a more sophisticated conversation about how we might revise and relax the height limit. I don't think we need to get rid of the limit entirely in order to have some beneficial impacts. The proposals I've seen are not very creative and don't take into account people's reasonable concerns on both sides.

Two, we should also be building more rowhouses/townhouses in neighborhoods that are currently more suburban, along with the transit infrastructure to make them not car-dependent, and we should be removing impediments to this kind of densification. That won't eliminate displacement from existing rowhouse neighborhoods, but it will at least allow people who are displaced to replicate something closer to their current lifestyle. Right now, the loss of quality of life associated with displacement is especially severe, because people are often displaced into neighborhoods with little transit access and poor social services.

[Anonymous]

New York and San Francisco have built tall billionaire towers, and have solved their gentrification challenges.

[Anonymous]

The mayor trumpets “inclusionary zoning” but the reality is that after 10 years of IZ, the percentage of Iz I’m qualifying projects is less than 8 percent. DC can’t build its way to affordable housing through IZ as a small part of market rate housing. The only times when I’ve observed that “trickle down” really works is when my dog finds a hydrant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The mayor trumpets “inclusionary zoning” but the reality is that after 10 years of IZ, the percentage of Iz I’m qualifying projects is less than 8 percent. DC can’t build its way to affordable housing through IZ as a small part of market rate housing. The only times when I’ve observed that “trickle down” really works is when my dog finds a hydrant.

And what is your proposed alternative, keeping in mind that the laws of supply and demand still apply?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New York and San Francisco have built tall billionaire towers, and have solved their gentrification challenges.

Ooooh, do Chicago next!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mayor trumpets “inclusionary zoning” but the reality is that after 10 years of IZ, the percentage of Iz I’m qualifying projects is less than 8 percent. DC can’t build its way to affordable housing through IZ as a small part of market rate housing. The only times when I’ve observed that “trickle down” really works is when my dog finds a hydrant.

And what is your proposed alternative, keeping in mind that the laws of supply and demand still apply?

DP. Inclusionary zoning, alone, won't work. Supply and demand, alone, won't work. There also have to be direct subsidies for building housing that poor people can afford to live in.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/15/opinion/sunday/homeless-crisis-affordable-housing-cities.html

[Anonymous]

So move to loudon county if you don’t want density. The fact is, housing is unaffordable because there isn’t enough of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The mayor trumpets “inclusionary zoning” but the reality is that after 10 years of IZ, the percentage of Iz I’m qualifying projects is less than 8 percent. DC can’t build its way to affordable housing through IZ as a small part of market rate housing. The only times when I’ve observed that “trickle down” really works is when my dog finds a hydrant.

And what is your proposed alternative, keeping in mind that the laws of supply and demand still apply?

DC need to build affordable housing in DC-owned properties. There are lots of DC properties in the District.

But folks, don’t kid yourselves. The mayor’s profound changes to the comp plan aren’t really about more affordable housing. They’re about creating more windfall profit opportunities to build more luxury housing. That’s why the office of planning basically outsourced the drafting to the mayor’s developer backers and their zoning law firms.