There will be no need for SFH with the new crime bill. Smart families will leave.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
+1. People who live in DC often take a very narrow-minded view of the suburbs and think that they're just full of people who would live in DC but are priced out. The truth is that many of us are totally happy in the suburbs, and we really only come into DC for work and don't find anything about DC to be particularly enjoyable. I'm sure this is true of other major cities as well; not everyone has bought into the idea that you can't have an exciting and fulfilling life if you don't live in a city.

Suburbanites are parasites on host cities. Film at 11.

Perhaps you should tell our employers to pay us enough to live there then. Given the cost of housing in DC, this isn't an "avoiding property taxes" thing.

The amount of money that I would need to be paid to live in DC in an equivalent safe neighborhood on a large lot on a quiet, tree lined street would be unconscionable. In any case, where I live the infrastructure and government services are much better so even if I was paid enough for the equivalent lifestyle it would not be an equivalent exchange. Particularly since it is vastly more convenient to get around and shop.

LOL, how many people (especially younger people) can afford to have a "large lot on a quiet tree lined street" anywhere? Most cannot afford to buy a home in the suburbs anyway, if you have one and can afford one this doesn't make it reality for everyone. Many people will have to resort to apartment living, and apartment living is objectively nicer in urban grid setting in the city vs. in the suburbs if you reduce crime and homelessness.

There is a reason that Howard County is growing as fast as it is. Others just leave the region entirely and move to the south or southwest. The people who would otherwise be the middle class tax base can afford a single family home with a yard if they move out far enough and the are increasingly willing to do it. DC is left with those wealthy enough to stay, those young enough to not care yet, and those too poor to leave.

There will always be people moving in and out. Wealthy have more than one home, they will stay, can afford it. Young will always come and go, they are transient. Some will move away and a new crop will take their place. Why is the trend of younger people getting settled and leaving for cheaper suburban/exurban homes supposed to be surprising these days?

Do you want to know what the real problem is? It is a demographic issue. DC greatly benefited from this huge cohort of Millennials flocking to cities and based its entire private sector economy, built environment and tax base around the presumption that this would continue indefinitely. Instead, what is happening is exactly as you point out, they are reverting to traditional behavior. However, it is such a large cohort that it will cause significant disruption and the city is not ready for it nor has come to terms that it is happening. Bowsers revitalization plan presumes that the remaining Millennials who are 30-45 years old will stay without understanding that they need to change to accommodate household formation and families and that there is a huge cohort of Gen Z behind them that will add to it. It makes zero sense as a strategy and from this perspective it looks like a city run by addicts who think that there is always another fix and will keep chasing that fix until they hit rock bottom. The reality is that the population of the city will not be appreciably increasing any time soon. In fact, the population growth of the whole USA is slowing.

I don't disagree with you that DC government and the way this city is run is dysfunctional TBH. But what do you want Bowser to do to increase SFH availability and affordability WITHIN the city when she cannot create more available unbuilt land? All you can do to increase housing supply and affordability is to build up and add density. I don't think it would be a challenge to consolidate small units into larger units if larger units would sell better. For millenials and GenZ who are willing to raise their kids in family sized apartments or rowhomes there will be more options, but for those wanting legit SFH housing with yards and 2 car garages options will be razor thin and getting smaller until older people die out and their kids start selling the homes they inherited instead of moving in.

The city needs to invest significant amounts of public resources in neighborhoods where SFH is affordable to make those neighbors safe and desirable. The city doesn’t seem to want to invest any public resources anywhere that doesn’t benefit developers. That’s the problem.

The people who live in those neighborhoods now don’t want to be pushed out by gentrification

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
+1. People who live in DC often take a very narrow-minded view of the suburbs and think that they're just full of people who would live in DC but are priced out. The truth is that many of us are totally happy in the suburbs, and we really only come into DC for work and don't find anything about DC to be particularly enjoyable. I'm sure this is true of other major cities as well; not everyone has bought into the idea that you can't have an exciting and fulfilling life if you don't live in a city.

Suburbanites are parasites on host cities. Film at 11.

Perhaps you should tell our employers to pay us enough to live there then. Given the cost of housing in DC, this isn't an "avoiding property taxes" thing.

The amount of money that I would need to be paid to live in DC in an equivalent safe neighborhood on a large lot on a quiet, tree lined street would be unconscionable. In any case, where I live the infrastructure and government services are much better so even if I was paid enough for the equivalent lifestyle it would not be an equivalent exchange. Particularly since it is vastly more convenient to get around and shop.

LOL, how many people (especially younger people) can afford to have a "large lot on a quiet tree lined street" anywhere? Most cannot afford to buy a home in the suburbs anyway, if you have one and can afford one this doesn't make it reality for everyone. Many people will have to resort to apartment living, and apartment living is objectively nicer in urban grid setting in the city vs. in the suburbs if you reduce crime and homelessness.

There is a reason that Howard County is growing as fast as it is. Others just leave the region entirely and move to the south or southwest. The people who would otherwise be the middle class tax base can afford a single family home with a yard if they move out far enough and the are increasingly willing to do it. DC is left with those wealthy enough to stay, those young enough to not care yet, and those too poor to leave.

There will always be people moving in and out. Wealthy have more than one home, they will stay, can afford it. Young will always come and go, they are transient. Some will move away and a new crop will take their place. Why is the trend of younger people getting settled and leaving for cheaper suburban/exurban homes supposed to be surprising these days?

Do you want to know what the real problem is? It is a demographic issue. DC greatly benefited from this huge cohort of Millennials flocking to cities and based its entire private sector economy, built environment and tax base around the presumption that this would continue indefinitely. Instead, what is happening is exactly as you point out, they are reverting to traditional behavior. However, it is such a large cohort that it will cause significant disruption and the city is not ready for it nor has come to terms that it is happening. Bowsers revitalization plan presumes that the remaining Millennials who are 30-45 years old will stay without understanding that they need to change to accommodate household formation and families and that there is a huge cohort of Gen Z behind them that will add to it. It makes zero sense as a strategy and from this perspective it looks like a city run by addicts who think that there is always another fix and will keep chasing that fix until they hit rock bottom. The reality is that the population of the city will not be appreciably increasing any time soon. In fact, the population growth of the whole USA is slowing.

I don't disagree with you that DC government and the way this city is run is dysfunctional TBH. But what do you want Bowser to do to increase SFH availability and affordability WITHIN the city when she cannot create more available unbuilt land? All you can do to increase housing supply and affordability is to build up and add density. I don't think it would be a challenge to consolidate small units into larger units if larger units would sell better. For millenials and GenZ who are willing to raise their kids in family sized apartments or rowhomes there will be more options, but for those wanting legit SFH housing with yards and 2 car garages options will be razor thin and getting smaller until older people die out and their kids start selling the homes they inherited instead of moving in.

The city needs to invest significant amounts of public resources in neighborhoods where SFH is affordable to make those neighbors safe and desirable. The city doesn’t seem to want to invest any public resources anywhere that doesn’t benefit developers. That’s the problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in Shaw. Been here nearly 20 years. I’m very worried about the direction the city is going in— which is rapidly into a cesspool of crime, blight and vacancy. I think we can’t undo the remote work. I work in DuPont just two days a week and my spouse with full time. Our neighborhood is loud (constant construction which I now worry will sit empty), motorcycles/atvs, loud engines, etc). This has gotten worse, not better. The bike lines sound like a good idea, but have led to ore rush hour congestion, not less, leaving cars to idle longer in traffic, leading to more pollution exposure.

I feel like this is dire. We need big ideas to realign downtown that doesn’t bank on feds and k street suits coming back. We need to get enforcem no public camping and address violent crime with more police and get rid of this woke Coincil. How about converting buildings into live/work loft spaces, with a good number of affordable units. Incentives for small businesses, cafes, etc. destroy ugly, outdated and vacant buildings for green space? Make some core thoroughfares into pedestrian malls with semi permanent outdoor markets and streeteries?

Was just in Paris which was thronging with tourists, tons of restaurants, cafe, markets and small businesses. Besides their culture, what other things do they do to ensure their cities remain vibrant? I noticed street cleaning trucks out everyday picking up litter and washing the streets literally.

Paris is a real world class city, which DC never was. Cities like NY and Paris have tourists and hoarded of people who want to live there regardless of employment.

DC is a company town. Very few people would ever aspire to live here if they won the lottery. There has always been limited high end shopping and entertainment. The mayor and local government made a huge mistake going all in on Covid. While it was nice to go against and hurt Trump, they ended up only hurting themselves. Remote work to a certain extent is here to stay and it will likely take DC decades to recover.

I saw the writing on the wall during the protests and sold my property in DC. A city does not have a great future if it’s allowing that kind of behavior while keeping schools closed and punishing small businesses.

You want to be feeling good about disinvesting from the city, so your opinion is clearly biased. DC doesn't need to be compared to NYC or Paris to be livable or enjoyable. Objectively speaking, there is nothing wrong with DC urban grid or its appearance to prevent it from being a desirable place to live and work. It already has existing infrastructure for a vibrant residential city life, it will take time to redevelop it and have people move in. You are predicting this will never happen and nobody likes to live in DC?

What does NYC have that DC doesn't? Broadway? Shrug. We visit NYC, we go to shows, we've gone to the museums and things but otherwise it's meh. Been to Paris at well - Paris at least has a bit more history but beyond that, a lot of Paris's character is more mental than real.

Skyscrapers.

Actually, NYC has a vibrant arts scene that DC completely lacks. It is not Broadway, it is off-Broadway where the difference is made.

NYC like LA has everything. There is nothing that you cannot find there.

NYC is the only truly large scale fully functional city where people live for generations and raise their families. It has its enclaves and ethnic communities that had lived there for generations and every part of NYC is providing different perspective and feels almost like a different city.

it's not as "functional" as DC when you have to move to DC in a recession. There were tons of NY and CT license plates in Tysons circa 2009-2010. I wonder if we will see that again in 2023.

I have my doubts this time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in Shaw. Been here nearly 20 years. I’m very worried about the direction the city is going in— which is rapidly into a cesspool of crime, blight and vacancy. I think we can’t undo the remote work. I work in DuPont just two days a week and my spouse with full time. Our neighborhood is loud (constant construction which I now worry will sit empty), motorcycles/atvs, loud engines, etc). This has gotten worse, not better. The bike lines sound like a good idea, but have led to ore rush hour congestion, not less, leaving cars to idle longer in traffic, leading to more pollution exposure.

I feel like this is dire. We need big ideas to realign downtown that doesn’t bank on feds and k street suits coming back. We need to get enforcem no public camping and address violent crime with more police and get rid of this woke Coincil. How about converting buildings into live/work loft spaces, with a good number of affordable units. Incentives for small businesses, cafes, etc. destroy ugly, outdated and vacant buildings for green space? Make some core thoroughfares into pedestrian malls with semi permanent outdoor markets and streeteries?

Was just in Paris which was thronging with tourists, tons of restaurants, cafe, markets and small businesses. Besides their culture, what other things do they do to ensure their cities remain vibrant? I noticed street cleaning trucks out everyday picking up litter and washing the streets literally.

Paris is a real world class city, which DC never was. Cities like NY and Paris have tourists and hoarded of people who want to live there regardless of employment.

DC is a company town. Very few people would ever aspire to live here if they won the lottery. There has always been limited high end shopping and entertainment. The mayor and local government made a huge mistake going all in on Covid. While it was nice to go against and hurt Trump, they ended up only hurting themselves. Remote work to a certain extent is here to stay and it will likely take DC decades to recover.

I saw the writing on the wall during the protests and sold my property in DC. A city does not have a great future if it’s allowing that kind of behavior while keeping schools closed and punishing small businesses.

You want to be feeling good about disinvesting from the city, so your opinion is clearly biased. DC doesn't need to be compared to NYC or Paris to be livable or enjoyable. Objectively speaking, there is nothing wrong with DC urban grid or its appearance to prevent it from being a desirable place to live and work. It already has existing infrastructure for a vibrant residential city life, it will take time to redevelop it and have people move in. You are predicting this will never happen and nobody likes to live in DC?

What does NYC have that DC doesn't? Broadway? Shrug. We visit NYC, we go to shows, we've gone to the museums and things but otherwise it's meh. Been to Paris at well - Paris at least has a bit more history but beyond that, a lot of Paris's character is more mental than real.

Skyscrapers.

Actually, NYC has a vibrant arts scene that DC completely lacks. It is not Broadway, it is off-Broadway where the difference is made.

NYC like LA has everything. There is nothing that you cannot find there.

NYC is the only truly large scale fully functional city where people live for generations and raise their families. It has its enclaves and ethnic communities that had lived there for generations and every part of NYC is providing different perspective and feels almost like a different city.

it's not as "functional" as DC when you have to move to DC in a recession. There were tons of NY and CT license plates in Tysons circa 2009-2010. I wonder if we will see that again in 2023.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
+1. People who live in DC often take a very narrow-minded view of the suburbs and think that they're just full of people who would live in DC but are priced out. The truth is that many of us are totally happy in the suburbs, and we really only come into DC for work and don't find anything about DC to be particularly enjoyable. I'm sure this is true of other major cities as well; not everyone has bought into the idea that you can't have an exciting and fulfilling life if you don't live in a city.

Suburbanites are parasites on host cities. Film at 11.

Perhaps you should tell our employers to pay us enough to live there then. Given the cost of housing in DC, this isn't an "avoiding property taxes" thing.

The amount of money that I would need to be paid to live in DC in an equivalent safe neighborhood on a large lot on a quiet, tree lined street would be unconscionable. In any case, where I live the infrastructure and government services are much better so even if I was paid enough for the equivalent lifestyle it would not be an equivalent exchange. Particularly since it is vastly more convenient to get around and shop.

LOL, how many people (especially younger people) can afford to have a "large lot on a quiet tree lined street" anywhere? Most cannot afford to buy a home in the suburbs anyway, if you have one and can afford one this doesn't make it reality for everyone. Many people will have to resort to apartment living, and apartment living is objectively nicer in urban grid setting in the city vs. in the suburbs if you reduce crime and homelessness.

There is a reason that Howard County is growing as fast as it is. Others just leave the region entirely and move to the south or southwest. The people who would otherwise be the middle class tax base can afford a single family home with a yard if they move out far enough and the are increasingly willing to do it. DC is left with those wealthy enough to stay, those young enough to not care yet, and those too poor to leave.

There will always be people moving in and out. Wealthy have more than one home, they will stay, can afford it. Young will always come and go, they are transient. Some will move away and a new crop will take their place. Why is the trend of younger people getting settled and leaving for cheaper suburban/exurban homes supposed to be surprising these days?

Do you want to know what the real problem is? It is a demographic issue. DC greatly benefited from this huge cohort of Millennials flocking to cities and based its entire private sector economy, built environment and tax base around the presumption that this would continue indefinitely. Instead, what is happening is exactly as you point out, they are reverting to traditional behavior. However, it is such a large cohort that it will cause significant disruption and the city is not ready for it nor has come to terms that it is happening. Bowsers revitalization plan presumes that the remaining Millennials who are 30-45 years old will stay without understanding that they need to change to accommodate household formation and families and that there is a huge cohort of Gen Z behind them that will add to it. It makes zero sense as a strategy and from this perspective it looks like a city run by addicts who think that there is always another fix and will keep chasing that fix until they hit rock bottom. The reality is that the population of the city will not be appreciably increasing any time soon. In fact, the population growth of the whole USA is slowing.

I don't disagree with you that DC government and the way this city is run is dysfunctional TBH. But what do you want Bowser to do to increase SFH availability and affordability WITHIN the city when she cannot create more available unbuilt land? All you can do to increase housing supply and affordability is to build up and add density. I don't think it would be a challenge to consolidate small units into larger units if larger units would sell better. For millenials and GenZ who are willing to raise their kids in family sized apartments or rowhomes there will be more options, but for those wanting legit SFH housing with yards and 2 car garages options will be razor thin and getting smaller until older people die out and their kids start selling the homes they inherited instead of moving in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
+1. People who live in DC often take a very narrow-minded view of the suburbs and think that they're just full of people who would live in DC but are priced out. The truth is that many of us are totally happy in the suburbs, and we really only come into DC for work and don't find anything about DC to be particularly enjoyable. I'm sure this is true of other major cities as well; not everyone has bought into the idea that you can't have an exciting and fulfilling life if you don't live in a city.

Suburbanites are parasites on host cities. Film at 11.

Perhaps you should tell our employers to pay us enough to live there then. Given the cost of housing in DC, this isn't an "avoiding property taxes" thing.

The amount of money that I would need to be paid to live in DC in an equivalent safe neighborhood on a large lot on a quiet, tree lined street would be unconscionable. In any case, where I live the infrastructure and government services are much better so even if I was paid enough for the equivalent lifestyle it would not be an equivalent exchange. Particularly since it is vastly more convenient to get around and shop.

LOL, how many people (especially younger people) can afford to have a "large lot on a quiet tree lined street" anywhere? Most cannot afford to buy a home in the suburbs anyway, if you have one and can afford one this doesn't make it reality for everyone. Many people will have to resort to apartment living, and apartment living is objectively nicer in urban grid setting in the city vs. in the suburbs if you reduce crime and homelessness.

There is a reason that Howard County is growing as fast as it is. Others just leave the region entirely and move to the south or southwest. The people who would otherwise be the middle class tax base can afford a single family home with a yard if they move out far enough and the are increasingly willing to do it. DC is left with those wealthy enough to stay, those young enough to not care yet, and those too poor to leave.

There will always be people moving in and out. Wealthy have more than one home, they will stay, can afford it. Young will always come and go, they are transient. Some will move away and a new crop will take their place. Why is the trend of younger people getting settled and leaving for cheaper suburban/exurban homes supposed to be surprising these days?

Do you want to know what the real problem is? It is a demographic issue. DC greatly benefited from this huge cohort of Millennials flocking to cities and based its entire private sector economy, built environment and tax base around the presumption that this would continue indefinitely. Instead, what is happening is exactly as you point out, they are reverting to traditional behavior. However, it is such a large cohort that it will cause significant disruption and the city is not ready for it nor has come to terms that it is happening. Bowsers revitalization plan presumes that the remaining Millennials who are 30-45 years old will stay without understanding that they need to change to accommodate household formation and families and that there is a huge cohort of Gen Z behind them that will add to it. It makes zero sense as a strategy and from this perspective it looks like a city run by addicts who think that there is always another fix and will keep chasing that fix until they hit rock bottom. The reality is that the population of the city will not be appreciably increasing any time soon. In fact, the population growth of the whole USA is slowing.

People who enjoy urban amenities have fewer options than those who don't care much about this, always had been the case. Those who care about it have to pay $$$$ for urban mansions if they want space and yards, or have to compromise and live in apartments and rowhomes if they want to stay. None of this is new. If they don't care to live in the city they buy a home and move, and if they cannot afford anything in DC metro to their liking and don't care to stick around here they go to cheaper metro areas. But the list of these affordable metro areas is shrinking because of the recent huge waves of people relocating there. It's not longer a bargain to move if you insist on living in the nice safe areas close to amenities.

Eventually sizable SFHs may become unaffordable for anyone who isn't top 1% if they want amenity rich connected areas. Most younger people without inherited homes will have to adjust their expectations and start considering higher density housing to raise their families (like many are already doing in NYC). Or they will have to love to live on rural land or economically depressed metro areas, which are still comparatively inexpensive. Given increase in immigration even if our birthrates fall we aren't looking for increase of affordable SFHs any time soon. We are looking at increase in density.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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?

Greater Greater Washington developers have their targets set on these. Goodbye green walkable neighborhoods. Will be like all the other cement cities.

I don't get the paranoia that DC somehow will have skyscrapers popping up in its residential parts. High density housing usually develops along transit and office space/commercial/shopping corridors, not in the midst of some deeply residential area where one needs to hike a mile to the nearest transit stop or a CVS.

^^and since our conversation is about empty federal buildings, it will eventually make sense for developers to start converting or rebuilding them instead of seeking to purchase expensive parcels of single family homes to put their residential mix use towers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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?

Greater Greater Washington developers have their targets set on these. Goodbye green walkable neighborhoods. Will be like all the other cement cities.

I don't get the paranoia that DC somehow will have skyscrapers popping up in its residential parts. High density housing usually develops along transit and office space/commercial/shopping corridors, not in the midst of some deeply residential area where one needs to hike a mile to the nearest transit stop or a CVS.

Anonymous wrote:My prediction - the converted office buildings (if they happen) will be purchased by foreign investors and corporate offices or by wealthy people for use as secondary homes. They will sit vacant a good deal of the time and will not bring the density needed to make the area more vibrant.

Nobody wants a second home in an urban area that's not vibrant. Isn't the point of a pied-a-terre to give you what you cannot get in suburbia?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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?

Affordable homes in safe neighborhoods? In DC, you can pick one or the other. Families who would rather not choose leave

They don't exist in other cities either, people who want safe and affordable move to the cheaper suburbs

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in Shaw. Been here nearly 20 years. I’m very worried about the direction the city is going in— which is rapidly into a cesspool of crime, blight and vacancy. I think we can’t undo the remote work. I work in DuPont just two days a week and my spouse with full time. Our neighborhood is loud (constant construction which I now worry will sit empty), motorcycles/atvs, loud engines, etc). This has gotten worse, not better. The bike lines sound like a good idea, but have led to ore rush hour congestion, not less, leaving cars to idle longer in traffic, leading to more pollution exposure.

I feel like this is dire. We need big ideas to realign downtown that doesn’t bank on feds and k street suits coming back. We need to get enforcem no public camping and address violent crime with more police and get rid of this woke Coincil. How about converting buildings into live/work loft spaces, with a good number of affordable units. Incentives for small businesses, cafes, etc. destroy ugly, outdated and vacant buildings for green space? Make some core thoroughfares into pedestrian malls with semi permanent outdoor markets and streeteries?

Was just in Paris which was thronging with tourists, tons of restaurants, cafe, markets and small businesses. Besides their culture, what other things do they do to ensure their cities remain vibrant? I noticed street cleaning trucks out everyday picking up litter and washing the streets literally.

Paris is a real world class city, which DC never was. Cities like NY and Paris have tourists and hoarded of people who want to live there regardless of employment.

DC is a company town. Very few people would ever aspire to live here if they won the lottery. There has always been limited high end shopping and entertainment. The mayor and local government made a huge mistake going all in on Covid. While it was nice to go against and hurt Trump, they ended up only hurting themselves. Remote work to a certain extent is here to stay and it will likely take DC decades to recover.

I saw the writing on the wall during the protests and sold my property in DC. A city does not have a great future if it’s allowing that kind of behavior while keeping schools closed and punishing small businesses.

You want to be feeling good about disinvesting from the city, so your opinion is clearly biased. DC doesn't need to be compared to NYC or Paris to be livable or enjoyable. Objectively speaking, there is nothing wrong with DC urban grid or its appearance to prevent it from being a desirable place to live and work. It already has existing infrastructure for a vibrant residential city life, it will take time to redevelop it and have people move in. You are predicting this will never happen and nobody likes to live in DC?

What does NYC have that DC doesn't? Broadway? Shrug. We visit NYC, we go to shows, we've gone to the museums and things but otherwise it's meh. Been to Paris at well - Paris at least has a bit more history but beyond that, a lot of Paris's character is more mental than real.

Skyscrapers.

Actually, NYC has a vibrant arts scene that DC completely lacks. It is not Broadway, it is off-Broadway where the difference is made.

NYC like LA has everything. There is nothing that you cannot find there.

NYC is the only truly large scale fully functional city where people live for generations and raise their families. It has its enclaves and ethnic communities that had lived there for generations and every part of NYC is providing different perspective and feels almost like a different city.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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?

Greater Greater Washington developers have their targets set on these. Goodbye green walkable neighborhoods. Will be like all the other cement cities.

What do you mean by this? Are you thinking of specific neighborhoods? I live in AU Park and it doesn’t feel like that’s going to happen. The too-big developer new builds in the neighborhood get mercilessly mocked on here and seem to take a long time to sell.

But they sold. AU Park will be up zoned for “missing middle” right after they are done with all MFH properties facing Wisconsin. You should get ready for that.