Washington, DC, avoided the worst price rises that have plagued American cities(worksinprogress.co)
worksinprogress.co
Washington, DC, avoided the worst price rises that have plagued American cities
https://worksinprogress.co/issue/how-dc-densified
61 comments
Rosslyn, Courthouse, Clarendon, and Ballston are more walkable and metro accessible than substantial chunks of DC and are where a huge number of Arlington's residents live. It's all shinier and has less character than DC but otherwise I think your characterization of Arlington is very off.
I lived in Courthouse for years. Obviously this is an opinion, but I don't view that corridor as a city.
It's a dense suburb with high rises along the corridor. It's metro accessible between Rosslyn, Courthouse, Clarendon and Ballston, but only along the strip. The metro is also so deep in areas and so slow to arrive, that going down and waiting usually takes longer than biking or walking or driving. Anything interesting in the area also requires a car. The corridor itself is barely human scale in terms of distance. Stores are very spaced apart. You can walk minutes and barely leave the alcove of your particular high rise. To me it's the worst of all worlds. Annoying to drive in, but too car centric to be truly walkable and not dense enough to make the metro really make sense. As soon as you leave the main corridor it also becomes single family homes with nothing going on. I will say, biking is a true pleasure though.
While DC as a whole might be less walkable than that corridor, it definitely has a city feel that I think is hard to put into words. I think it has a much more even density of housing, stores, and restaurants that you don't find in newer developments that tend to segregate zoning. It's a much more interesting place to exist in for the average human. It's why I don't think they two areas are interchangeable at all.
It's a dense suburb with high rises along the corridor. It's metro accessible between Rosslyn, Courthouse, Clarendon and Ballston, but only along the strip. The metro is also so deep in areas and so slow to arrive, that going down and waiting usually takes longer than biking or walking or driving. Anything interesting in the area also requires a car. The corridor itself is barely human scale in terms of distance. Stores are very spaced apart. You can walk minutes and barely leave the alcove of your particular high rise. To me it's the worst of all worlds. Annoying to drive in, but too car centric to be truly walkable and not dense enough to make the metro really make sense. As soon as you leave the main corridor it also becomes single family homes with nothing going on. I will say, biking is a true pleasure though.
While DC as a whole might be less walkable than that corridor, it definitely has a city feel that I think is hard to put into words. I think it has a much more even density of housing, stores, and restaurants that you don't find in newer developments that tend to segregate zoning. It's a much more interesting place to exist in for the average human. It's why I don't think they two areas are interchangeable at all.
[deleted]
I live in NYC and haven’t been to DC in ages, but what is the deal with this station?
https://maps.app.goo.gl/G8SXAuMAZVypHyuKA?g_st=ic
It’s, like, in the middle of a bunch of parking lots? A big part of the catchment area is a highway interchange? How do you walk to this station?
https://maps.app.goo.gl/G8SXAuMAZVypHyuKA?g_st=ic
It’s, like, in the middle of a bunch of parking lots? A big part of the catchment area is a highway interchange? How do you walk to this station?
I don't live there, but I'm familiar with Tysons corner (it's an enormous mall serving most of nova). that station probably functions more as a park-and-ride than something you would actually walk to.
I remember being in Tysons on business a few years back and could see across the road to the mall. But I couldn’t just walk there to find dinner because there was literally no way to walk across the road.
I don't disagree with your critiques and I certainly have my own of the area, but I see a lot of that as an argument for why the Arlington corridor is part of DC conceptually. It is highly connected to DC (transit times into DC as low or lower than many intra-DC trips), high density (the entire county is only a bit less population dense than DC itself), and essentials are walkable if a bit inconvenient at times. Arlington would be a bad city if it were isolated, but Arlington is the way it is because it isn't isolated.
Concur. I've lived in Rosslyn, Courthouse and Clarendon in that order and I've enjoyed it. Georgetown is a quick walk or bike across the river. DC is a quick metro ride away and you don't have to deal with having a car downtown. On the weekends your that much closer to the outdoors and don't have to deal with traffic leaving and entering DC.
Still though, a metro stop in Georgetown woulda been nice.
The argument of the piece is that the silver line corridor is tightly integrated with the city of DC. I lived in Clarendon and tons of people lived there and commuted into the city. People live there because DC is a great city with filled with interesting work that doesn't exist anywhere outside of the capital.
Every city has gotten more expensive, but DC gotten more expensive much slower than NYC or SF. High rises and strip malls are tolerable if you live on a metro line with easy access to downtown neighborhoods. And building high rises is much preferable to a city where working- or middle-class people can never own a home.
Every city has gotten more expensive, but DC gotten more expensive much slower than NYC or SF. High rises and strip malls are tolerable if you live on a metro line with easy access to downtown neighborhoods. And building high rises is much preferable to a city where working- or middle-class people can never own a home.
> DC is horrifically expensive for a small city.
Fully disagree. I lived in a very nice 2bd/1ba apt with a friend just two years ago and paid $1200/mo in rent.
> If you're going to live in Arlington it begs the question of "why even live there unless you have to".You could probably live anywhere else since the character-less high rise apartments and strip malls are copy and pasted for every other new development style in the country. I was just in Bellevue in Seattle and for all I knew it could have been Arlington.
Wow. I disagree so hard here. As someone who grew up in Arlington, sure I'm biased, but also educated on what Arlington is like - there are incredible diasporas from Korea, Mongolia, East Africa, and Central America. Really excellent food, a lot of culture spread throughout. Public school system is amazing, and you're 1.5-2hrs away from some amazing national parks. Sure - it's still a suburb. The Rosslyn/Clarendon strip has some spots that fit the description you're talking about, but also some spots that totally don't. It brings a lot more to the table than most other suburbs I've been to.
Fully disagree. I lived in a very nice 2bd/1ba apt with a friend just two years ago and paid $1200/mo in rent.
> If you're going to live in Arlington it begs the question of "why even live there unless you have to".You could probably live anywhere else since the character-less high rise apartments and strip malls are copy and pasted for every other new development style in the country. I was just in Bellevue in Seattle and for all I knew it could have been Arlington.
Wow. I disagree so hard here. As someone who grew up in Arlington, sure I'm biased, but also educated on what Arlington is like - there are incredible diasporas from Korea, Mongolia, East Africa, and Central America. Really excellent food, a lot of culture spread throughout. Public school system is amazing, and you're 1.5-2hrs away from some amazing national parks. Sure - it's still a suburb. The Rosslyn/Clarendon strip has some spots that fit the description you're talking about, but also some spots that totally don't. It brings a lot more to the table than most other suburbs I've been to.
You're definitely not finding a 2bd/1ba apt in a safe area in DC for that cost, and I've looked. Not anymore.
Look, Arlington is fine. It's a fantastic suburb if looking at it stats wise. It's educated, the foods weirdly good, and the schools are good. That said, it's pretty interchangeable with a lot of new build suburbs across the country but expensive with pretty awful traffic. You could put me in most places in Arlington and I couldn't tell you what state I was in. To me that's just not a place that has the type of character I'm looking for. I'd rather a shittier place that has some soul, than Arlington. It's why I loved Richmond much more than anywhere I lived in Arlington.
Obviously this is all personal opinion. But I've definitely noticed that certain types of people struggle to be in the NOVA area, so they leave. The people left are people I struggle to relate to. Doesn't mean they're bad people, they're just not my people
Look, Arlington is fine. It's a fantastic suburb if looking at it stats wise. It's educated, the foods weirdly good, and the schools are good. That said, it's pretty interchangeable with a lot of new build suburbs across the country but expensive with pretty awful traffic. You could put me in most places in Arlington and I couldn't tell you what state I was in. To me that's just not a place that has the type of character I'm looking for. I'd rather a shittier place that has some soul, than Arlington. It's why I loved Richmond much more than anywhere I lived in Arlington.
Obviously this is all personal opinion. But I've definitely noticed that certain types of people struggle to be in the NOVA area, so they leave. The people left are people I struggle to relate to. Doesn't mean they're bad people, they're just not my people
> I lived in a very nice 2bd/1ba apt with a friend just two years ago and paid $1200/mo in rent.
In the actual city?
In the actual city?
I’m not sure I agree with this. I currently live in Arlington, and used to live in DC a few years ago. I moved here because it is safer than DC but still 10 minutes away from DC, has fantastic public schools, and even more fantastic public parks, much cleaner than most areas of DC, cheaper, tones of restaurants, bars, etc.
Arlington is to DC as Oakland is to SF: they're not interchangeable, but they've become substitutable for many in the region.
> It's not very walkable and not very metro accessible except along the silver line corridor.
I left Arlington in 2017. I spent the previous 19 years there without a car and had no problem getting around by walking, biking, or public transportation (subway, Metrobus, and ART -- Arlington's local bus system). I did not live in the Blue/Yellow or Orange/Silver subway corridors. The closest I ever lived to the subway was more than one mile. Focusing development along the subway lines was a good idea. There's a lot about Arlington I'd criticize; but, getting around is not one of them.
I left Arlington in 2017. I spent the previous 19 years there without a car and had no problem getting around by walking, biking, or public transportation (subway, Metrobus, and ART -- Arlington's local bus system). I did not live in the Blue/Yellow or Orange/Silver subway corridors. The closest I ever lived to the subway was more than one mile. Focusing development along the subway lines was a good idea. There's a lot about Arlington I'd criticize; but, getting around is not one of them.
Arlington is DC enough. Geographically it is just as close to downtown as Tenleytown. DC proper is expensive, but they didn't see crazy appreciation like the rest of the country. Prices stayed flat.
It actually WAS DC at one time, then Virginia reclaimed its territory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_retrocess...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_retrocess...
> It's not very walkable and not very metro accessible except along the silver line corridor.
I bike everywhere and advocate for less car centric infrastructure. But in an intellectually honest way, The Automobile has been very effective at slowing the rise of housing costs, for decades, almost everywhere.
I bike everywhere and advocate for less car centric infrastructure. But in an intellectually honest way, The Automobile has been very effective at slowing the rise of housing costs, for decades, almost everywhere.
Has it? It's also increased the cost of housing fairly directly in the form of mandatory parking, which is very expensive especially in urban areas. (And indirectly in the form of the opportunity cost of that space not being used for more housing.)
[deleted]
> DC is horrifically expensive for a small city
With some of the worst crime.
With some of the worst crime.
I grew up in the area and don't think it's really fair to compare Arlington, VA to San Francisco. The corridors where all of the residential development has occurred in Arlington in the last 30 years were all basically condemned shopping or office parks. Clarendon/Wilson Blvd, Columbia Pike, Route 1, Rosslyn. All of those areas were relatively cheap land and zoned such that they could build large residential towers and mixed-use shopping centers. They are also almost all on or near metro lines. I've only lived in the Bay Area for a few years but I don't see the same opportunities in SF proper.
Within SF there's tons of single family housing neighborhoods along muni lines in the Richmond and Sunset that could be densified. Arlington is a suburb - the analogs are Daly City along BART, South San Francisco, and Milbrae/San Mateo along Caltrain. There's plenty of underutilized land around transit in those suburbs too.
Even if we lived in a world without zoning, occupied residential land is going to take far longer to densify than basically-empty former-commercial/industrial stuff.
All the suburbs building the same sort of multi-story mixed-development to replace what used to be strip malls or warehouses or whatever also have single family housing and existing residential - it's just worlds easier if you don't have to deal with as many property owners or with people who don't really want to move.
All the suburbs building the same sort of multi-story mixed-development to replace what used to be strip malls or warehouses or whatever also have single family housing and existing residential - it's just worlds easier if you don't have to deal with as many property owners or with people who don't really want to move.
You may or may not be right but "Building dense housing along transit will take longer here than it did there" is not a good argument against building things in the Bay.
Upzoning provides a windfall for the current landowners, increases tax revenue, provides more places for people to live, and reduces price pressure on people being pushed out of the neighborhood. The author pointed out that apartment dwellers pay more in taxes than they consume from city services, and that a group of homeowners who were interested in selling were able to get their land upzoned and sell to a developer for a 3x return.
Upzoning provides a windfall for the current landowners, increases tax revenue, provides more places for people to live, and reduces price pressure on people being pushed out of the neighborhood. The author pointed out that apartment dwellers pay more in taxes than they consume from city services, and that a group of homeowners who were interested in selling were able to get their land upzoned and sell to a developer for a 3x return.
The entirety of SV sprawl, especially along caltrain, could be dense housing. Every caltrain station should be surrounded by at minimum 5 story buildings but skyscrapers would work too. Yes, the issue is that these towns are captured by NIMBYs who strangle the zoning, it doesn't have to be that way.
I’m very familiar with DC, and this article is largely accurate. That said, some context:
- this is the whole DC area, not DC itself, which is quite expensive (think SF vs Bay Area). “DC” here is actually a collection of cities surrounding DC.
- the Metro is largely a commuter rail, not a day-to-day transit option. If you live outside DC proper, you need a car.
- DC is remarkably economically stable because of the government. Imagine if Tech in SF reliably paid exactly 75k-150k for every role, with 99% job security, regardless of economic conditions. That’s the DC economy.
- this article ignores the fact that municipal fragmentation keeps costs low too. If Alexandria doesn’t build, Tysons and Arlington will.
All that to say, transit isn’t the only answer. DC is v unique in the US.
- this is the whole DC area, not DC itself, which is quite expensive (think SF vs Bay Area). “DC” here is actually a collection of cities surrounding DC.
- the Metro is largely a commuter rail, not a day-to-day transit option. If you live outside DC proper, you need a car.
- DC is remarkably economically stable because of the government. Imagine if Tech in SF reliably paid exactly 75k-150k for every role, with 99% job security, regardless of economic conditions. That’s the DC economy.
- this article ignores the fact that municipal fragmentation keeps costs low too. If Alexandria doesn’t build, Tysons and Arlington will.
All that to say, transit isn’t the only answer. DC is v unique in the US.
> the Metro is largely a commuter rail, not a day-to-day transit option
Going to disagree on this statement. MARC and VRE are commuter rail. Metro is higher frequency than any commuter rail system and has high frequency in all directions even outside of rush hour.
DC is unique in how far into the suburbs they have high frequency transit. The orange line and blue lines already reached pretty far from the city before the silver line was built, which goes ridiculously far out from the city.
Going to disagree on this statement. MARC and VRE are commuter rail. Metro is higher frequency than any commuter rail system and has high frequency in all directions even outside of rush hour.
DC is unique in how far into the suburbs they have high frequency transit. The orange line and blue lines already reached pretty far from the city before the silver line was built, which goes ridiculously far out from the city.
I just moved here and I see people use Metro to go get groceries in Arlington. Which seems super weird to me because all of the Metro stations in the corridor between Rosslyn and Ballston are really close to grocery stores and then you have to pay $4 (at least) round trip, but I think that proves people use it as rapid transit...
> the Metro is largely a commuter rail, not a day-to-day transit option.
Looks like every 3/4 minutes, which would be very unusually frequent for a commuter line.
Also, er, commuter rail _is_ a day-to-day option; that's why it's called commuter rail. It is, literally, what it is for.
Looks like every 3/4 minutes, which would be very unusually frequent for a commuter line.
Also, er, commuter rail _is_ a day-to-day option; that's why it's called commuter rail. It is, literally, what it is for.
Government starts lower than 75k but your sentiment stands.
I live in the part of Arlington that this article talks about the most and it's so fascinating to learn about the history of how the area got developed. It really does feel like the county has nailed the the development of Ballston and Clarendon. The only thing I'd complain about is parking. Street parking has costed me over a thousand dollars lol (my car got shot by a bb gun and insurance didn't pay so that's mostly why, but otherwise it feels super safe here)
“The Sahara Desert avoided the worst price rises that have plagued…”
There's a table that shows the clear inverse correlation between number of added homes and price increases.
lolwut? this says "Washington, DC" but it's actually just Arlington. DC has been gentrifying for decades, despite the protests of very involved activist citizen groups.
Arlington avoided price rises because it and the surrounding NoVA area was still being built out, so profits for landowners and management companies could be maximized by planning for growth, and providing the amenities that would bring in more middle-class renters. Washington, DC was built out ages ago; there is nowhere for prices to go but up.
Arlington avoided price rises because it and the surrounding NoVA area was still being built out, so profits for landowners and management companies could be maximized by planning for growth, and providing the amenities that would bring in more middle-class renters. Washington, DC was built out ages ago; there is nowhere for prices to go but up.
Surprise surprise. I was going to DC a lot during 2008-2009, when the economy was not in good shape. The place felt untouched. Expensive restaurants everywhere full of people, and everyone bustling about with their little lapel pins that notated the department they worked for, like little aristocrats.
DC is a bubble. They don't live in the real world there.
DC is a bubble. They don't live in the real world there.
I lived in Arlington and DC later in the 2010s and it was an incredibly vibrant and diverse city. WASPs are everywhere but so are the younger diverse crowd around U Street, H Street, and Columbia Heights. As well as the huge Ethiopian and Vietnamese populations, with incredible food.
Where would you recommend one visit if they wanted to experience this "real world"? Better yet, what's the realest place one could visit, based on your metrics of restaurants and personal accessories?
edit: thank you all for your travel suggestions, but this was a tongue-in-cheek way of trying to point out the absurdity of the OP's comment about DC not being the "real world".
edit: thank you all for your travel suggestions, but this was a tongue-in-cheek way of trying to point out the absurdity of the OP's comment about DC not being the "real world".
Wouldn't necessarily agree with the source of OP's metrics, but I would agree with the sentiment I believe they are expressing.
Comparatively, the other major metropolitan areas in the U.S. produce some product/service that is competitive in the common market: tech things (SF-Bay Area), financial services (NY), entertainment (LA), more tech things (Seattle), etc. [0] Another way I think about it is that these other metro areas have to produce something that people would want to exchange dollars for because they provide more value to them than their dollars.
The thing that separates D.C. from these other metros (and for lack of a better term, "the real world") is that the value-determination mechanism of exchanging dollars for goods/services is completely different than the other cities (and I would argue much worse). Government has little incentive to spend less and consequently seek goods/services that provide the best value. In fact, the U.S. federal government has quite the opposite motivation. Every department is incentivized to spend as much as possible within their allotted budget (which hardly ever decreases year-over-year), lest they demonstrate that they could actually perform their functions with less money than has been allotted to them (gasp!). This phenomenon can be observed in the frenzy to spend all the budgeted money by the end of the fiscal year. [2]
The end result is a city that continuously spends more money for goods/services that are almost orthogonal to providing value (since that is not their point). There's something perverse in the fact that of the ten highest median income counties in the U.S., 50% of them are in this area that produces goods/services of dubious to no value. [1]
[0] Apologies to anyone if I caused offense at these gross oversimplifications of their cities.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-income_countie...
[2] Anecdote: I literally worked on a project for a three-letter agency to develop an ML model that would identify which budgeted funds were "in danger" of going unspent by the end of the fiscal year. Leadership loved it. What was a manual process involving countless person-hours that usually began in late spring to comb through the budget, could be supplemented by a model-based prediction in February.
Comparatively, the other major metropolitan areas in the U.S. produce some product/service that is competitive in the common market: tech things (SF-Bay Area), financial services (NY), entertainment (LA), more tech things (Seattle), etc. [0] Another way I think about it is that these other metro areas have to produce something that people would want to exchange dollars for because they provide more value to them than their dollars.
The thing that separates D.C. from these other metros (and for lack of a better term, "the real world") is that the value-determination mechanism of exchanging dollars for goods/services is completely different than the other cities (and I would argue much worse). Government has little incentive to spend less and consequently seek goods/services that provide the best value. In fact, the U.S. federal government has quite the opposite motivation. Every department is incentivized to spend as much as possible within their allotted budget (which hardly ever decreases year-over-year), lest they demonstrate that they could actually perform their functions with less money than has been allotted to them (gasp!). This phenomenon can be observed in the frenzy to spend all the budgeted money by the end of the fiscal year. [2]
The end result is a city that continuously spends more money for goods/services that are almost orthogonal to providing value (since that is not their point). There's something perverse in the fact that of the ten highest median income counties in the U.S., 50% of them are in this area that produces goods/services of dubious to no value. [1]
[0] Apologies to anyone if I caused offense at these gross oversimplifications of their cities.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-income_countie...
[2] Anecdote: I literally worked on a project for a three-letter agency to develop an ML model that would identify which budgeted funds were "in danger" of going unspent by the end of the fiscal year. Leadership loved it. What was a manual process involving countless person-hours that usually began in late spring to comb through the budget, could be supplemented by a model-based prediction in February.
Chicago. It's interesting that the article doesn't mention Chicago and its metro area at all. The Chicago metro area is still one of the largest in the US, and is relatively affordable. There are also tons of jobs here and its culture and entertainment is only rivaled by a couple cities in the US.
Chicago has interestingly varied density. In an area that is otherwise low-rise, there will be one extremely tall skyscraper.
I wonder what kind of land use policy creates this phenomenon.
I wonder what kind of land use policy creates this phenomenon.
Probably the fact that the mayor and aldermen only care about property developers, and it is probably cheaper to buy some old building in an area with no skyscrapers.
>absurdity of the OP's comment about DC not being the "real world".
DC is absurd, it consists almost entirely of people who live off the rest of the nation's tax dollars and yet look down upon the people who subsidize their lives. OP was pointing out the fact that the rest of the nation was suffering during the recession but DC was untouched because their jobs and lifestyle are ensured by government funds
DC is absurd, it consists almost entirely of people who live off the rest of the nation's tax dollars and yet look down upon the people who subsidize their lives. OP was pointing out the fact that the rest of the nation was suffering during the recession but DC was untouched because their jobs and lifestyle are ensured by government funds
You're confusing DC with a very small subset of DC which is affluent or government jobs. The vast majority of people who work in DC do not live in DC. Over half of DC's residents are below the poverty line, with terrible schools, barely can get school lunches, child care, or halfway decent jobs. They don't get shit from the nation's tax dollars.
You can't have an over class without an under class. Rich people need poor people to do the work.
Queens or the Bronx in NYC. They're big city but full of real, working class people and immigrants. Parts of Brooklyn are good too (but also parts of Brooklyn are just as bad and worse than DC). Definitely not Manhattan, lol--it's DC attitude and costs but everyone works for banks and finance instead of the government.
I live in SF at the moment but have family originally from the Bronx. Spending time in NYC neighborhoods is so satisfying, I agree that there's a sense of that you don't get in more expensive areas.
Pittsburgh! Cool working class people and the personal accessories are usually the local sports teams.
Take a long ride around Seattle, for one example.
St Louis?
> DC is a bubble. They don't live in the real world there.
They do, they just ignore it. 40% of the city population is poor to working class black people. It was once 70%.
They do, they just ignore it. 40% of the city population is poor to working class black people. It was once 70%.
I think that sadly it is easy to ignore when the divide is largely geographical.
There are areas where you can have a bustling set of offices with high paid workers, and you walk 4-5 blocks down, and you're in a poor neighborhood. And the two don't interact.
There are areas where you can have a bustling set of offices with high paid workers, and you walk 4-5 blocks down, and you're in a poor neighborhood. And the two don't interact.
DC has benefited from continuously increasing government spending, for sure. But it is not immune to downturns. The last was probably in the early to mid 90's when defense spending dropped (at least for certain industries). I've warned friends there who were investing in residential real estate for years that it could happen again, but at this point I sound like Chicken Little.
> DC has benefited from continuously increasing government spending, for sure.
What government spending?
What government spending?
>DC is a bubble. They don't live in the real world there.
This reminded me of what my Russian -American friend told me about present-day Moscow. The family members they have there are living very happily in the city, with great transportation and healthcare options, completely isolated from the rest of the world and the Ukraine war. I can see how it would be easy to believe Putin's version of reality if that's all you ever were exposed to.
This reminded me of what my Russian -American friend told me about present-day Moscow. The family members they have there are living very happily in the city, with great transportation and healthcare options, completely isolated from the rest of the world and the Ukraine war. I can see how it would be easy to believe Putin's version of reality if that's all you ever were exposed to.
What I've seen is that Arlington and the surrounding counties only seem to draw people in if they HAVE to be there. Everyone else I know left to literally anywhere else since it really doesn't bring much to the table.