Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And in every city in a good low crime neighborhood near it's "urban center" housing is expensive. Housing is also expensive in every city in its affluent suburban neighborhoods with good schools. It's cheaper in middle class suburbs or those that are further out from amenities, so you would get more bang for your buck if you aren't picky. If your goal is to house your family in a comfortable spacious home with a yard and good amenities driving distance away you can find loads of choices. If your goal is to live in the more upscale suburbs or near urban amenities and have a house vs. TH/apartment then it's not a bargain even in lower COL cities. Everyone had the same idea as you over a decade ago, we had been discussing this on DCUM for ages. Guess what happens when people actually do this for a while (and DC metro isn't the only area bleeding younger professionals to lower COL states/cities)? Prices there go up.

Is this just word salad? I cannot tell what point you’re trying to make.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Will ending violence, easing traffic congestion, investing in parks and fixing sidewalks in Brightwood promote gentrification or makes the lives of the people who live there better? There is a lot of dilapidated housing stock there that needs investment and it won’t receive investment until these things are fixed. There is also a lot of naturally occurring low income MFH which has limited prospect of turning into luxury apartment because they cannot legally drive voucher recipients out and they have poor aesthetics/bad bones. So gentrification there is not a major concern.

DP. Further, fixing sidewalks and parks doesn't do anything to address the question of where do you shop? If you want to create a walkable community, there needs to be somewhere to walk to, like restaurants or supermarkets. What's being done to encourage businesses to enter these areas?

It doesn’t happen all at once. Businesses won’t come if there aren’t customers. It’s pretty simple. Unless people think it’s somehow an undue burden to schlep themselves a little ways to Walmart on Georgia or Whole Foods at Walter Reed.

Nicer stores come with gentrification, which means poorer residents are replaced by those with much more disposable income to patronize these stores and restaurants. Poor and MC neighborhoods have a different feel than affluent neighborhoods (urban or suburban, doesn't matter) for a reason. It costs a lot to keep up nicer looking home, people living hand to mouth cannot do this. You can improve parks and sidewalks all you want and even put a cop on every block to monitor crime, but until poor home owners get cash to fix their homes or someone wealthier buys them and fixes them the area won't look as nice, and nicer amenities won't open up there due to lack of customers.

I think the problems with younger HIGHER earning couples wanting to have SFH and being priced out from premium areas isn't solved by fixing crime and sidewalks in areas with run down housing and lack of yuppie amenities. Some of these buyers will inevitably come anyway for cheaper housing, low crime and parks. And then gentrification will start. and then prices will start going up and locals will be tempted to sell, with some of them remaining and getting annoyed when the nature of their neighborhood changes and too many "rich" people replace their discount stores and take out places with overpriced bars, coffee shops, groceries, and restaurants they cannot afford.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And in every city in a good low crime neighborhood near it's "urban center" housing is expensive. Housing is also expensive in every city in its affluent suburban neighborhoods with good schools. It's cheaper in middle class suburbs or those that are further out from amenities, so you would get more bang for your buck if you aren't picky. If your goal is to house your family in a comfortable spacious home with a yard and good amenities driving distance away you can find loads of choices. If your goal is to live in the more upscale suburbs or near urban amenities and have a house vs. TH/apartment then it's not a bargain even in lower COL cities. Everyone had the same idea as you over a decade ago, we had been discussing this on DCUM for ages. Guess what happens when people actually do this for a while (and DC metro isn't the only area bleeding younger professionals to lower COL states/cities)? Prices there go up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Will ending violence, easing traffic congestion, investing in parks and fixing sidewalks in Brightwood promote gentrification or makes the lives of the people who live there better? There is a lot of dilapidated housing stock there that needs investment and it won’t receive investment until these things are fixed. There is also a lot of naturally occurring low income MFH which has limited prospect of turning into luxury apartment because they cannot legally drive voucher recipients out and they have poor aesthetics/bad bones. So gentrification there is not a major concern.

It'll make the lives of those who can afford to stay better. Those that can't won't be around to care about the changes

A lot of people in Brightwood own their houses so they are not likely to be priced out.

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?

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.

Good — we’re right near transit and the city needs affordable middle-class housing. Why not build it here?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Will ending violence, easing traffic congestion, investing in parks and fixing sidewalks in Brightwood promote gentrification or makes the lives of the people who live there better? There is a lot of dilapidated housing stock there that needs investment and it won’t receive investment until these things are fixed. There is also a lot of naturally occurring low income MFH which has limited prospect of turning into luxury apartment because they cannot legally drive voucher recipients out and they have poor aesthetics/bad bones. So gentrification there is not a major concern.

DP. Further, fixing sidewalks and parks doesn't do anything to address the question of where do you shop? If you want to create a walkable community, there needs to be somewhere to walk to, like restaurants or supermarkets. What's being done to encourage businesses to enter these areas?

It doesn’t happen all at once. Businesses won’t come if there aren’t customers. It’s pretty simple. Unless people think it’s somehow an undue burden to schlep themselves a little ways to Walmart on Georgia or Whole Foods at Walter Reed.

Since DC isn't big on cars, is DC expanding bus service and making it safer and convenient to use?

You realize that Brightwood is a fundamentally different neighborhood to wherever you live and that most people there commute by car and most people who shop at Walmart or Whole Foods will arrive by car.

But DC wants to grow the population. The current roads are already sufficiently congested. Creating more housing doesn't fix any of the transportation problems if everyone has to drive somewhere to buy anything.

Well, it’s a problem the District brought on itself. They can choose congestion or economy. They choose congestion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Will ending violence, easing traffic congestion, investing in parks and fixing sidewalks in Brightwood promote gentrification or makes the lives of the people who live there better? There is a lot of dilapidated housing stock there that needs investment and it won’t receive investment until these things are fixed. There is also a lot of naturally occurring low income MFH which has limited prospect of turning into luxury apartment because they cannot legally drive voucher recipients out and they have poor aesthetics/bad bones. So gentrification there is not a major concern.

DP. Further, fixing sidewalks and parks doesn't do anything to address the question of where do you shop? If you want to create a walkable community, there needs to be somewhere to walk to, like restaurants or supermarkets. What's being done to encourage businesses to enter these areas?

It doesn’t happen all at once. Businesses won’t come if there aren’t customers. It’s pretty simple. Unless people think it’s somehow an undue burden to schlep themselves a little ways to Walmart on Georgia or Whole Foods at Walter Reed.

Since DC isn't big on cars, is DC expanding bus service and making it safer and convenient to use?

You realize that Brightwood is a fundamentally different neighborhood to wherever you live and that most people there commute by car and most people who shop at Walmart or Whole Foods will arrive by car.

But DC wants to grow the population. The current roads are already sufficiently congested. Creating more housing doesn't fix any of the transportation problems if everyone has to drive somewhere to buy anything.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Will ending violence, easing traffic congestion, investing in parks and fixing sidewalks in Brightwood promote gentrification or makes the lives of the people who live there better? There is a lot of dilapidated housing stock there that needs investment and it won’t receive investment until these things are fixed. There is also a lot of naturally occurring low income MFH which has limited prospect of turning into luxury apartment because they cannot legally drive voucher recipients out and they have poor aesthetics/bad bones. So gentrification there is not a major concern.

DP. Further, fixing sidewalks and parks doesn't do anything to address the question of where do you shop? If you want to create a walkable community, there needs to be somewhere to walk to, like restaurants or supermarkets. What's being done to encourage businesses to enter these areas?

It doesn’t happen all at once. Businesses won’t come if there aren’t customers. It’s pretty simple. Unless people think it’s somehow an undue burden to schlep themselves a little ways to Walmart on Georgia or Whole Foods at Walter Reed.

Since DC isn't big on cars, is DC expanding bus service and making it safer and convenient to use?

You realize that Brightwood is a fundamentally different neighborhood to wherever you live and that most people there commute by car and most people who shop at Walmart or Whole Foods will arrive by car.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Will ending violence, easing traffic congestion, investing in parks and fixing sidewalks in Brightwood promote gentrification or makes the lives of the people who live there better? There is a lot of dilapidated housing stock there that needs investment and it won’t receive investment until these things are fixed. There is also a lot of naturally occurring low income MFH which has limited prospect of turning into luxury apartment because they cannot legally drive voucher recipients out and they have poor aesthetics/bad bones. So gentrification there is not a major concern.

DP. Further, fixing sidewalks and parks doesn't do anything to address the question of where do you shop? If you want to create a walkable community, there needs to be somewhere to walk to, like restaurants or supermarkets. What's being done to encourage businesses to enter these areas?

It doesn’t happen all at once. Businesses won’t come if there aren’t customers. It’s pretty simple. Unless people think it’s somehow an undue burden to schlep themselves a little ways to Walmart on Georgia or Whole Foods at Walter Reed.

Since DC isn't big on cars, is DC expanding bus service and making it safer and convenient to use?

Broken windows...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Will ending violence, easing traffic congestion, investing in parks and fixing sidewalks in Brightwood promote gentrification or makes the lives of the people who live there better? There is a lot of dilapidated housing stock there that needs investment and it won’t receive investment until these things are fixed. There is also a lot of naturally occurring low income MFH which has limited prospect of turning into luxury apartment because they cannot legally drive voucher recipients out and they have poor aesthetics/bad bones. So gentrification there is not a major concern.

DP. Further, fixing sidewalks and parks doesn't do anything to address the question of where do you shop? If you want to create a walkable community, there needs to be somewhere to walk to, like restaurants or supermarkets. What's being done to encourage businesses to enter these areas?

It doesn’t happen all at once. Businesses won’t come if there aren’t customers. It’s pretty simple. Unless people think it’s somehow an undue burden to schlep themselves a little ways to Walmart on Georgia or Whole Foods at Walter Reed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Will ending violence, easing traffic congestion, investing in parks and fixing sidewalks in Brightwood promote gentrification or makes the lives of the people who live there better? There is a lot of dilapidated housing stock there that needs investment and it won’t receive investment until these things are fixed. There is also a lot of naturally occurring low income MFH which has limited prospect of turning into luxury apartment because they cannot legally drive voucher recipients out and they have poor aesthetics/bad bones. So gentrification there is not a major concern.

DP. Further, fixing sidewalks and parks doesn't do anything to address the question of where do you shop? If you want to create a walkable community, there needs to be somewhere to walk to, like restaurants or supermarkets. What's being done to encourage businesses to enter these areas?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Will ending violence, easing traffic congestion, investing in parks and fixing sidewalks in Brightwood promote gentrification or makes the lives of the people who live there better? There is a lot of dilapidated housing stock there that needs investment and it won’t receive investment until these things are fixed. There is also a lot of naturally occurring low income MFH which has limited prospect of turning into luxury apartment because they cannot legally drive voucher recipients out and they have poor aesthetics/bad bones. So gentrification there is not a major concern.

It'll make the lives of those who can afford to stay better. Those that can't won't be around to care about the changes

And so the problem is what? DC excuses for not investing in these areas? It’s not just affluent white people who are leaving. Affluent Black people are leaving too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Will ending violence, easing traffic congestion, investing in parks and fixing sidewalks in Brightwood promote gentrification or makes the lives of the people who live there better? There is a lot of dilapidated housing stock there that needs investment and it won’t receive investment until these things are fixed. There is also a lot of naturally occurring low income MFH which has limited prospect of turning into luxury apartment because they cannot legally drive voucher recipients out and they have poor aesthetics/bad bones. So gentrification there is not a major concern.

It'll make the lives of those who can afford to stay better. Those that can't won't be around to care about the changes

Anonymous wrote:

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

Will ending violence, easing traffic congestion, investing in parks and fixing sidewalks in Brightwood promote gentrification or makes the lives of the people who live there better? There is a lot of dilapidated housing stock there that needs investment and it won’t receive investment until these things are fixed. There is also a lot of naturally occurring low income MFH which has limited prospect of turning into luxury apartment because they cannot legally drive voucher recipients out and they have poor aesthetics/bad bones. So gentrification there is not a major concern.