Reply to Real talk about the city’s economy, federal buildings leases, and telework impacts

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Real talk about the city’s economy, federal buildings leases, and telework impacts"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Does the mayor honestly believe that these folks are coming back? They left to go start families in the suburbs and mid-sized metros. Building 15k micro apartments downtown is not going to convince these people to return. Three bedroom apartments on Capitol Hill might, but they just spent the last decade building nothing but studios and 1-BDs. Just goes to show the risks of designing your economic strategy around a demographic cohort. When the trends turn against you, your economy is in serious trouble.

[twitter]https://twitter.com/maustermuhle/status/1612488228325720064[/twitter][/quote]
It’s hard not to see DC in real trouble looking at these numbers. Unless DC can create thousands more 3-4 bedroom houses with yards, it’s not clear how the city meets this population goal. Throw in fear of crime, schools, fiscal issues and downtown revitalization on top of everything else and it’s difficult to feel positive about the near term unless big changes are made.

[twitter]https://twitter.com/JWPascale/status/1612491565032738824[/twitter]

[/quote]

Compared to other cities DC has plenty of housing with yards, and if you desire anything more than a rowhouse or a detached house on a small lot (common in residential parts of DC) then maybe city life isn't really what you are looking for? [/quote]
Which cities? NYC? Yes. Philly? Maybe. Pittsburgh? No. Also no for Chicago, Raleigh, Charlotte, Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Boston, Jacksonsville, Orlando, St. Pete, Seattle, Portland, etc, etc.[/quote]

You listed a bunch of sprawly suburban-like cities here, but if you go to their city center or more interesting urban parts where you could maybe live car free or at least do most of your necessary errands on foot, then you won't find affordable 4 bedr detached homes with big yards.   These are always expensive everywhere, because most of the housing stock in truly urban areas is higher density.  You are going to say that DC metro doesn't have enough residential areas and suburbs? It does, but it will be more expensive than some of the cities you listed and about the same as the others you listed.  If you desire SFH living you can find it anywhere, but city doesn't need to have most of its housing stock consisting of SFHs to thrive. The city that still has the highest rents is the densest one, apparently enough people want to live there not deterred by a complete lack of any opportunity for SFH living. [/quote]
You said “compared to other cities” and that is false. In fact, almost all cities in the USA provide more available SFH housing with yards. If you want to disqualify cities that you don’t deem worthy, that’s on you. However, that is also where DC residents along with many Americans are moving to so you may need to come to terms with it.[/quote]

Give me specific examples.   Anything nice and safe where there are generously sized SFHs with yards and good schools VERY NEAR urban centers with jobs and desirable urban amenities that aren't economically depressed is going to be expensive.  "greener pastures" are shrinking.

[/quote]
Every city is an “urban center”. You create these bizarre qualifying criteria to prove a point that’s pointless and futile. It’s also clear that you’ve never been to any of the cities I’ve listed to understand the geography of housing. You’re just making stuff up to prove a point that’s pointless. You need to deal with the reality that people would rather be in famed urban areas of Charlotte, Raleigh, or Boise than DC and they are demonstrating that with their feet. Hell, the data itself shows that high wage 35+ year olds would rather be in the Maryland suburbs. You can put your head and scream la la la la la la all you want but it’s not going to change this trend.

What could have made a difference is using opportunities like Walter Reed to prioritize developing a family community focused on attached SFHs and building out the street grid with a central  shopping district with conos and apartments instead of giving it away to developers to build high mass MFH apartments in a profit maximizing way. Short sighted city government that prioritizes developers over people reaps what it sows. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics