Washington, D.C.'s CSA population numbers compared to other U.S. cities (real estate, apartment)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Au contraire, I live in an auto-centric, but not auto-dependent, suburban landscape, with a range of commuting options that include public transportation. I choose to defend that lifestyle, as well as others that may be more or less car-focused, to the extent that they reflect a range of judgments made by rational people seeking to act in their best interests and the best interests of their families. If that means they decide to live in a city, that may be a reasonable decision. If that means they choose to live in a city and then exaggerate the number of middle-class families or minimize the challenges that some of the local schools may face, in an effort to encourage others to follow their own path, that's intellectually dishonest, contrary to C-D at its best, and fair game for comment. "
I think adding some consideration for the planet is worthy, though I accept that most people make most of their choices without regard to anything but the interests of themselves and their families.
As for boosterism, its found all over C-D. Certainly I have found few examples as egregious as the Loudoun County boosterism found in the NoVa forum.
"I don't need to jam words in your mouth; your own words betray you. You pay lip service to the idea of choice, but then assert that the market is not functioning properly because it doesn't produce enough of what you consider desirable - more density. To date, at least in this area, there has been a healthy and sustained demand in both urban and suburban areas, which is why a place like Loudoun County now has the highest median incomes in the "
The market is almost certainly NOT functioning properly - as shown by high rental premiums for TOD locations, high land prices at TOD locations, etc. The market is not satisfying demand, and not bringing price down to the marginal cost of construction. In Greater DC, and in several other metros. Part of that is due to lag, and will resolve over time. A good portion of it is due to artificial supply limiits on the production of high density TOD - resulting from all kinds of zoning and preservation issues, as well as from the under supply of high frequency, high quality, transit service. Both DC and several suburban jurisdictions are attempting to address those in various ways - DC and MoCo with new zoning codes, PG by looking at walkability issues with its existing metro stations and by supporting denser development along Rte 1, state of maryland by building the purple line, DC by its street car initiative, Arlington and Alexandria in ways that would fill a book - zoning, transit, and bike/ped support. Fairfax by initiating a reconstruction of Tysons that, if it succeeds, will be a model for the nation.
Note the market failures noted above are only those involving constraints on the supply of "walkable urbanism". Not those involving failures to price carbon and other externalities or information failures causing some people to overestimate the negatives of high density and/or central city living (these latter informatin failures are probably less in Greater DC than in some other metros, IMO - but they are not completely absent)
As for LoCo, adjusting for house size and age, its prices aren't particularly high. Its high incomes reflect population age and family structure, and the age and mix of housing. Given that LoCo east of the growth boundary will be built out at some point, the model of keeping incomes (and county revenues) high by having so much new construction of SFHs is not sustainable. That is probably one reason the "adults" in LoCo have been so supportive of the Silver Line and of TOD. (at One Loudoun LoCO is building "new urbanist style" development without transit, so great is the demand for the new style)
You revealed the rub of your issue here: you associate the desire to be able to walk to a corner store with "bourgeoisie", even though, when done right, it can provide a very high quality of life to people who can't afford a car or gas.
The country is currently afflicted by a faux populism attempting to use a "culture war" as a distraction from actual issues of economic inequality. Much of the discussion of urbanism on CD takes on this quality. To me the best response is to continue to support policies that will make "walkable urbanism" more affordable, by reducing the constraints on supply.
The country is currently afflicted by a faux populism attempting to use a "culture war" as a distraction from actual issues of economic inequality. Much of the discussion of urbanism on CD takes on this quality. To me the best response is to continue to support policies that will make "walkable urbanism" more affordable, by reducing the constraints on supply.
Where's James Carville when you need him? "It's the walkable urbanism, stupid" undoubtedly should be the campaign mantra of 2012. If only this message were articulated, surely those who are seeking jobs and suffering from economic inequality would rally to this candidate.
I think you tread on dangerous ground when you use phrases like "faux populism," since you run the risk of contending that people are being bamboozled or don't know what's best for them. You know, let them cling to their silly guns, religion and homes with two-car garages and mud rooms, etc. Some of what you'd characterize are "constraints of supply" are the result of people participating in the democratic process and expressing their preferences to their elected officials. However, I personally like having a corner store within walking distance of my house and, if that makes me part of the "bourgeoisie," so much the better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brooklynborndad
As for boosterism, its found all over C-D. Certainly I have found few examples as egregious as the Loudoun County boosterism found in the NoVa forum.
Neither of us lives in Loudoun, but I must say that I think it's poor form to take pot shots at Loudoun posters based on things they've said on the NoVa forum and then complain about it on the DC forum. It's like you either want to cry on the shoulder of some DC forum members or don't have the fortitude to express your views to the Loudoun posters directly on the forum where they are most likely to see your comments.
Where's James Carville when you need him? "It's the walkable urbanism, stupid" undoubtedly should be the campaign mantra of 2012. If only this message were articulated, surely those who are seeking jobs and suffering from economic inequality would rally to this candidate.
hmm? I think its fairly clear that there has been an attempt by many conservatives to focus on liberals as an alien cultural elite, and that is part of an attempt to divert attention from real economic inequality, and that to some extent at least, it works. The walkable urbanism stuff is a relatively small part of that, but I do think discussions of walkable urbanism are influenced by that.
Quote:
I think you tread on dangerous ground when you use phrases like "faux populism," since you run the risk of contending that people are being bamboozled or don't know what's best for them..
Is it dangerous to suggest that sometimes some people are bamboozled? Was abe lincoln (you can fool some people all of the time, and all people some of the time) a dangerous man? I think its only realistic to suggest that sometimes people make mistakes.
Quote:
You know, let them cling to their silly guns, religion and homes with two-car garages and mud rooms, etc.
.
hmm. If you are trying to say that the harping on the guns and religion quote was part of the culture war, to stir people up against 'elites' (a stirring up done by, among others, people in the pay of the Koch brothers) I would agree.
Quote:
Some of what you'd characterize are "constraints of supply" are the result of people participating in the democratic process and expressing their preferences to their elected officials. .
indeed. So are protective tarriffs. That does not prevent me from clarifying how they distort free markets. Now if I were suggesting eliminating those constraints by dictatorial methods, that they originated in a democratic process would be relevant. but I am not. Indeed, the proposed changes in the DC and MoCO zoning codes are being proposed by appointees of democratically elected govts. In some cases there is resistance from residents of a particular neighborhood to the wishes of a city or county - which side of that is "democratic" is a matter of debate.
and more relevantly - the constraints are one of the reasons TOD is so pricey, and hence one of the reasons why its so hard for non-bourgeois to afford it (and I suspect in some cases keeping TOD scarce and pricey is a financial motive to "nimbyism" of those who own housing in TOD areas) The issue here is understanding what the currently observed growth rates tell us about demand - thats an empirical question, not a policy question. To answer it, one must examine price levels, and the existing policy constraints that impact prive levels.
Quote:
However, I personally like having a corner store within walking distance of my house and, if that makes me part of the "bourgeoisie," so much the better. .
I doubt there are many people in Mclean averse to being labeled bourgeois. I grew up in a neighborhood in Brooklyn with a corner store - anyone labeling that place bourgeois would be a fool.
Quote:
Neither of us lives in Loudoun, but I must say that I think it's poor form to take pot shots at Loudoun posters based on things they've said on the NoVa forum and then complain about it on the DC forum. It's like you either want to cry on the shoulder of some DC forum members or don't have the fortitude to express your views to the Loudoun posters directly on the forum where they are most likely to see your comments.
I have no need to derail that forum with what is obvious (I've taken issue with specific instances in the past and been called a Loudoun basher for it - quite frankly its not worth the aggravation), nor did I raise the issue of boosterism in this forum. I only pointed out that the boosterism in this forum is mild compared to what is common in related forums. That someone feels a need to police the DC forum for urbanist boosterism, while ignoring other more blatant forms of boosterism, suggests that what they have a problem with is not boosterism per se.
Last edited by brooklynborndad; 09-04-2012 at 11:48 AM..
I think this almost proves too much. It's hard for me to see a group of people coming to a conclusion that the addition of bike paths is somehow going to result in a loss of their individual liberties unless they are already sick of urbanists and development "experts" who label their own preferred styles of development "smart" growth, while constantly deriding places where other people live as "cookie-cutter" and "sprawl." What seems enlightened to some people comes across as condescension to others. If liberals don't want people "manipulated" by the like of Koch-funded groups, stop giving them so much ammunition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brooklynborndad
I have no need to derail that forum with what is obvious (I've taken issue with specific instances in the past and been called a Loudoun basher for it - quite frankly its not worth the aggravation), nor did I raise the issue of boosterism in this forum. I only pointed out that the boosterism in this forum is mild compared to what is common in related forums. That someone feels a need to police the DC forum for urbanist boosterism, while ignoring other more blatant forms of boosterism, suggests that what they have a problem with is not boosterism per se.
Meh, I still think you're taking cheap shots against Loudoun posters on a different forum here, as if the DC forum is the free space in a Bingo game. And I'm not even sure what it is that you think the Loudoun posters say on the NoVa forum that is "blatant" boosterism, other than the fact that one poster argues with you repeatedly as to whether her own suburban neighborhood can fairly be characterized as "walkable." As for me, after living in DC for over a decade (as well as, more recently, the DC suburbs) and working in various parts of the city for almost 30 years, I feel like I have enough of a perspective on DC to comment on some threads, even if what I have to say isn't what you or some other posters always want to hear. The fact that I have a background in urban studies possibly might play a small role as well. Either way, I don't complain about things that people post on this forum over on the NoVa forum.
I think this almost proves too much. It's hard for me to see a group of people coming to a conclusion that the addition of bike paths is somehow going to result in a loss of their individual liberties unless they are already sick of urbanists and development "experts" who label their own preferred styles of development "smart" growth, while constantly deriding places where other people live as "cookie-cutter" and "sprawl." What seems enlightened to some people comes across as unadulterated condescension to others.
Being bamboozled means being conned into believing something not true. What these folks believe about Agenda 21 is false, and its falsehood is easily found out. That someone said something mean to them may explain why they are so easily bamboozled, but it does not mean they were not. (And its odd that folks who are so easily hurt by being told they live in sprawl are so against coddling people, poltical correctness, etc)
And you make it sound like referring to smart growth is elitist and rude. Do you think Sharon Bulova is a rude elitist?
Quote:
Meh, I still think you're taking cheap shots against Loudoun posters on a different forum here, as if the DC forum is the free space in a Bingo game. And I'm not even sure what it is that you think the Loudoun posters say on the NoVa forum that is "blatant" boosterism, other than the fact that one poster argues with you repeatedly as to whether her own suburban neighborhood can fairly be characterized as "walkable."
If you honestly think the discussion of walkability is the only example of LoCo boosterism, I am not going to try to disabuse you. I don't want a 30 post debate about LoCo here, any more than I do there. I will simply reiterate that its not my sense that Bluefly is particularly boosterist by CD standards.
Quote:
As for me, after living in DC for over a decade and working in various parts of the city for almost 30 years, I feel like I have enough of a perspective on DC to comment on some threads, even if what I have to say isn't what you or some other posters always want to hear. The fact that I have a degree in urban studies possibly might play a small role as well.
This is an internet forum. No ones credentials are checkable (for all anyone here knows I've never set foot in Brooklyn). I don't care whats on your resume, whether its a degree in urban "studies", urban planning, economics, or whatever. I will judge your posts by the insight of their content. You know a great deal about many local issues, especially schools. On urbanism though, you sound like you are ignoring some pretty straightforward economics, and a lot of what you post is rhetoric associating "urbanists" with "liberal elitists" - a meme that is at least as common in todays discussion as say, the meme that liberalizing zoning will reduce rents.
"fringe people with a lot of time on their hands." It's obviously a deliberately insulting, condescending choice of words.
if i were a speechwriter trying to put the same facts into politically correct form, I would say "they are an atypical demographic, who place a lower value on the duration of their commute than do most commuters in the region"
I am kind of glad there are people in this region who are not always so careful with their words.
I think this almost proves too much. It's hard for me to see a group of people coming to a conclusion that the addition of bike paths is somehow going to result in a loss of their individual liberties unless they are already sick of urbanists and development "experts" who label their own preferred styles of development "smart" growth, while constantly deriding places where other people live as "cookie-cutter" and "sprawl." What seems enlightened to some people comes across as condescension to others. If liberals don't want people "manipulated" by the like of Koch-funded groups, stop giving them so much ammunition.
1. Since a very large number of the agenda 21 obsessed folks actually live in rural areas, not suburbs, I don't think their reaction results from being told their areas are cookie-cutter
2. AFAICT very few professional "urbanists" use heated language.
3. Not all such "urbanists" are actually liberals. Not a few of them are libertarians, for whom market oriented urbanism is only one facet of their belief in markets.
The agenda 21 stuff is not a rational or reasonable reaction to the current policy debate. Its like "keep the govt out of my medicare". There is no point in trying to walk on eggshells to avoid distortion by the Koch fronts - it will happen anyway.
but by all means, do pass on your proposal to rename the CSG to the Coalition for kind of okay, but if you dont like it, thats kewl too, Growth. The CFKOBIYDLITHTKTG. I'm sure if they only do that, everyone will understand that the UN sustainability initiative is non-binding, and that zoning has been part of US local govt for a century, and that urbanists actually usually want LESS restrictive zoning.
Being bamboozled means being conned into believing something not true. What these folks believe about Agenda 21 is false, and its falsehood is easily found out. That someone said something mean to them may explain why they are so easily bamboozled, but it does not mean they were not. (And its odd that folks who are so easily hurt by being told they live in sprawl are so against coddling people, poltical correctness, etc)
And you make it sound like referring to smart growth is elitist and rude. Do you think Sharon Bulova is a rude elitist?
Your perceptions may be different from those who grew up in different circumstances and see their suburban homes as the realization of their aspirations, only to be told that their developments would not even exist had only "smart growth" been in place previously to prevent someone from building their "cookie-cutter" homes in suburban communities that allegedly could be found in Anywhere, USA. Certainly some who live in this CSA feel that this is the message they get from some urbanists, and it only underscores the point that language and verbiage do matter that you want to accuse them - or me by proxy - of applying a double standard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brooklynborndad
If you honestly think the discussion of walkability is the only example of LoCo boosterism, I am not going to try to disabuse you. I don't want a 30 post debate about LoCo here, any more than I do there.
No, I don't know what you're talking about. The only issues that I recall your getting into spats with Loudoun posters about on the NoVa forum were the "walkability" of some Loudoun neighborhoods and, perhaps, whether the best ethnic dining in NoVa had shifted from eastern Fairfax to western Fairfax and Loudoun. Otherwise, my sense is that people who live in Loudoun typically just have good things to say about their communities, and are pretty upbeat, which is fairly common on C-D. I sense that you feel that you are more objective about where you live in Annandale than others are about their Loudoun neighborhoods, but it may be that they are simply happier with their living situations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brooklynborndad
This is an internet forum. No ones credentials are checkable (for all anyone here knows I've never set foot in Brooklyn). I don't care whats on your resume, whether its a degree in urban "studies", urban planning, economics, or whatever. I will judge your posts by the insight of their content. You know a great deal about many local issues, especially schools. On urbanism though, you sound like you are ignoring some pretty straightforward economics, and a lot of what you post is rhetoric associating "urbanists" with "liberal elitists" - a meme that is at least as common in todays discussion as say, the meme that liberalizing zoning will reduce rents.
I wasn't mentioning my background in urban studies to qualify myself as an expert, but only to explain why I continue to take an interest in some threads on this forum, even though I no longer live in the District (but instead only continue to work here). I'm not a trained economist, and have never held myself out as one, although I try to avoid simplistic assumptions when I recognize them (such as an assumption that liberalizing zoning will always reduce rents or that building more highways will always relieve traffic congestion).
But, you're not an urbanist and a liberal elitist? You attended Stuyvesant HS (a very selective HS); you regularly find ways to interject liberal politics into various threads (such as your bringing up Barbara Comstock's work for Republican candidates when people on the NoVa forum simply wanted to discuss, in objective terms, what it means to be "rich" or successful in this area, with its expensive cost of living); you treat matters of urban planning and transit-oriented development as if they should be the top priority of discussion; and you appear to spend a large amount of time walking or biking around cities and close-in suburbs and then posting about it on C-D. I absolutely believe that this is a twice-exceptional (liberal elitist and urbanist) perspective that does not reflect the concerns of the majority of people who live in this CSA, and that your expectation that people agree with your priorities and concur with your views is why you end up having so many heated discussions with other posters on the NoVa forum who are less liberal and/or elitist, and less consumed with questions of urbanism.
Last edited by JD984; 09-04-2012 at 03:11 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
