Replies

There are probably a few duplexes around though I can't picture one, but many of the rowhouses have been subdivided into two, three and four unit buildings. We have quite a few smaller apartment buildings; these were part of the Victorian urban style and they've survived the transition. We have converted schools. We have converted churches.

Guessing it's mostly younger hipsters and other gentrifiers who live in these units.

Here and there, especially along our major arterial streets, we have large scale rebuilds, and some of these have a mix of price points including supported low income units.

Okay, so here's where you might find some actual low-income people.

Sounds like folks in the historic district have insisted on a zoning approach that allows a sprinkling of low-income housing in the arterial areas but keeps it away from the nicer parts.

LOL. Capitol Hill doesn't do hipsters. We are a starched and buttoned down demographic. The Hill is very centrally located. It has always attracted people who work for Congress or downtown and don't want a brutal commute. When the city crashed and burned, the schools went south. The Hill continued to attract young people for the traditional job reasons, but they tended to move when they got married and kids reached school age. The public schools became no-go areas for the middle class of all races, so if you stayed on the Hill, you sucked it up and paid for private school. Most left for the burbs. But the Hill has always been a nice place to live.

Gentrification is driven largely by the awful traffic congestion in the suburbs. Commuters are spending two to four hours a day in their cars. Private schooling looks a lot more affordable if you put a dollar value on your time wasted in traffic. About 20 years ago, young people started staying on the Hill when their kids went to school. A snowball effect kicked in. A couple of our local elementary schools have flipped, and people are actually moving to the Hill to be in bounds for public schools. High school remains an issue.

Historically, the Hill has always been a mixed use, mixed income neighborhood. It is only very recently that it has emerged as an expensive area. People my age routinely reflect that we wouldn't have moved to the Hill in the first place at today's price points. But for those of us who bought 20-30 years ago, gentrification has been a financial windfall. I don't know how the young people can afford it.

Most of central Capitol Hill is in the historic district and has some protection against being torn down. It is also mostly built out. Here and there, there are small scale infills. Major projects in the historic district are few and far between, but there are a few.

Our local Safeway, for example, was torn down last year. It will reopen next year, but the old one-story, big parking lot plan is gone. Safeway will occupy the first floor. There will be four floors of condos or apartments above that. All the parking will be underground, so the dead space of a big parking lot becomes usable space. I think that project will bring 150 units. I don't know the price point.

A local underutilized junior high school on Pennsylvania Avenue at Eastern Market was torn down with a new, major development taking its place. Again, all the parking is underground. The full footprint of the site is used. There's ground floor retail and residences and offices above. There are some affordable housing units, but the top end is extremely pricey. This is in a premier location.

We've had a couple of LBJ era housing projects torn down. The replacements are attractive, mixed income developments. There is significant densification all around the perimeter of the historic district where developers have more latitude to tear things down. The Anacostia and Potomac River waterfronts, along the foot of Capitol Hill, are being intensively redeveloped, at high density. The H Street N.E. corridor, which was burned out in the '68 riots, is finally being rebuilt. More densification.

This kind of thing is now happening all over the city, while congestion in the suburbs only gets worse, and already insane commutes turn into nightmares.

But hey: Maryland wants to add another lane to I-270 inside the beltway (which is already six lanes, eight including the shoulders, each way). And they want to add another lane to the Maryland portion of the beltway. Even if this is eventually built, ten or more years from now, it will not make a dent in the problem, as new sprawl development even further out will overtake it before the first shovel of dirt is turned.

The simple fact is that DC's traditional spokes and hub commuter system is collapsing under its own weight. It is no longer scalable. And even if you could build more lanes on arterial roads, there is nowhere to put the cars once they get downtown. We are at terminal congestion. People are going to have to take the train or live closer to their jobs. And this includes poor people.

Our urban planning was car centric for over 50 years. That has to change. We have to redevelop into a city in which significantly more people can live closer to work. That translates into walkable and bikeable, mixed use, mixed income neighborhoods all over the metro area. Suburban NIMBYism has to go.