Reply to Future of DC metro

Forum Index » Real Estate

Reply to "Future of DC metro"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I believe that Northern VA will become the Silicon Valley of the East.  Right now, there is so much tech investment in the area. I also think that the rest of the DMV will fine, though they will look different.   [/quote]

Zero chance. Point me to the universities that will feed it. Answer? Zero.[/quote]

Hopkins, College Park and UVA are all close enough to become major feeders for a Silicon Valley East Coast. All three are major research universities, especially the first one and Hopkins already has a sizable presence in/near DC.

As for the future of the metro area, one only needs to look at [b]Baltimore, Philadelphia and the rust belt cities to know cities absolutely can wither away[/b]. What does it mean for DC? Well, the Fed is still here and it's not going anywhere, even if it drastically downsizes. Which I do expect will happen. And it's not just the downsizing, is the elimination of funding for so many NGOs and non profits and research think tanks that will also have implications for the local housing markets. [/quote]

Not really understanding this comment.  Neither Baltimore or Philadelphia has withered away...and then you have cities like Pittsburgh that have undergone a massive renaissance over the last 30 years.[/quote]

Baltimore's population peaked at 950k in 1950 and is about 550k today, with the usual major demographic changes within the remaining 550k. It's also not the industrial powerhouse it was. Cities like Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Detroit, St. Louis, and even Philadelphia, are much smaller population-wise than they were 50 years ago and have very different economies today than in the past. Cleveland dropped from 915k in 1950 to 375k today. Pittsburgh peaked at 671k and is now down to 303k. Of course the metro areas are still much larger and even have grown but those are largely a reflection of national population growth and the emergence of a much bigger service economy that exists anywhere, feeding off population rather than true economic growth. None of these cities have the same economic presence or prestige they did in their heydays, showing you cities do wax and wane. DC's unlikely to see serious population decline, as the metro goes, but if the economic impetus from being the [b]center of a profligate Federal government and everything that feeds off it drops sharply to a smaller version[/b], it will absolutely impact the whole region, changing from a high value economy to a smaller/middling economy based on a smaller government + usual services.

Philadelphia is a good example to look at. It was, par for course, a much wealthier city in the late 19th century than today despite a still decent economy and regional presence. You can see it in the architecture and suburbs like the Main Line, the latter remains desirable, but it's much cheaper than the equivalents around DC. There just is not that much money in Philadelphia any more.[/quote]

They definitely want to reduce government footprint by a lot, but the goal isn't necessarily to destroy DC. It definitely can happen as a result of their policies, but it also may not for various reasons:

1) they need to keep appearances of a major superpower capital city, so can't let DC fall into too much disrepair and neglect.
2) they may not succeed cutting down as much workforce and spending as they desire 
3) DC isn't a state and they can change tax laws and status, future of DC is unknown, it's not one of the industry cities. Philly, Baltimore are some of many, but there is only one DC.
4) DC has a lot of educated workers, already existing talent pool and empty buildings for private companies to tap into.

These are just a few points that I think make DC situation different from what happened in the rust belt cities over time.

Even with this Philadelphia suburbs aren't cheap.  I think their prices are in line with NWDC and older homes in DC premium burbs.  DC suburbs experienced a building boom and a lot of housing stock is now replaced with brand new homes, new homes being always more expensive than 10-20 year old McMansions which are more common in other suburbs.  This also skews housing prices.  Cannot compare a brand new 8000+ sq.ft place with older colonial McMansions of 5000sq.ft [/quote]

Anyone who argues Philadelphia real estate isn't cheaper knows nothing about Philadephia. It's significantly cheaper than DC when comparing apples to apples, not apples to oranges. Especially once you get away from the Maine Line. Compare what you can buy with a $1M budget in the DMV to Philadelphia. And your comment about brand new fake 8000 sqft (which is half basement anyway) with older houses is meaningless. Real estate is driven strictly by location, location, location, not a new McMansion in Loudoun versus a 1920s house in Spring Valley in NWDC. What you need to do is to compare the exact same McMansion in outer Loudoun to Chester County, Spring Valley to Chestnut Hill, Arlingon to Narberth, Chevy Chase to Merion Station. Those are the apples to apples comparison. And Philadelphia will be cheaper. Philadelphia also has a much larger supply of basic middle class housing at middle class prices.

And, more pertinent to the theme of declining cities, Philadelphia also has sizable tracts of housing built when it was a richer city and which are now much cheaper. Places like Overland Farms within the city or Glenside or Cheltenham in the northern suburbs, where large houses built for an affluent population are now much cheaper, adjusting for inflation. The same could happen in DC. Your $1.5M house could sell for $2.5M in 25 years from today but adjusting for inflation it'd really only worth the equivalent of a $1M house today.[/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