Hartford has to be one of the most depressing and empty places in the world. It's a shame though, because you can see evidence of a once-thriving culture.

by Neil Flanagan on Dec 2, 2009 9:46 am  

perhaps the difference between Vancouver, WA and Hartford, CT has something to do with regional economics as well as two way streets? I mean, without the federal government around DC would look like Baltimore and/or Richmond, and that isn't always a pretty sight.

That being said, I tend to think most of the one way streets in DC make it more ped friendly.

by charlie on Dec 2, 2009 9:48 am  

Why do the developers built those idiotic looking Malibu style roof decks atop so many of these new buildings?
They look awful- and I doubt that they will age well .

by w on Dec 2, 2009 9:58 am  

Something else to consider: Connecticut is one of the most-taxed states in the country. High taxes aren't exactly conducive to business growth...

by Froggie on Dec 2, 2009 10:08 am  

The post about education is right on. I live in Arlington, and along with many other families in the neighborhood, moved there from the city because it's the closest to DC we can be with great public schools up through high school. (Not that we don't love Arlington itself -- just saying how we got there.)

by Paul on Dec 2, 2009 10:33 am  

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes about education and Smart Growth. Many middle-class people with children will not consider living in D.C. due to the D.C. public school system's current reputation. (I realize that this is a chicken-and-egg problem.)

Another thing to think about is that it's not just roads that are (in)adequate public facilities. Schools are, too.

by Miriam on Dec 2, 2009 10:39 am  

Weird to think that I (and probably a lot of us) are somewhere in that video dozens of times whether walking or riding by.

by Canaan on Dec 2, 2009 11:08 am  

I'd even go so far as to say middle-class families (maybe even republicans!) would start buying smaller houses in the city, forego yards for parks, cars for transit... if the schools were better than suburban alternatives. People will go to considerable lengths for their kids.

by NAB on Dec 2, 2009 11:29 am  

Fix the schools and there would be a land rush.

by Thayer-D on Dec 2, 2009 12:10 pm  

Thayer- you are correct, as is the usual case.

However- I would also add that the city needs to dump about half of our employees, lower the horribly high income & small business taxes we have in DC, reform the jury process to make it less onerous and safer , and demolish the remaining public housing projects that strangle many neighborhoods with built in drugs / crime elements.

...then there will be a real land rush.
Actually- the demand for middle class and decent housing in DC is now so high , even given the "great recession" that many people ignore the aforesaid difficulties, at their own peril. My biggest fear is the city will lose many of the youngish families that have taken to roost here during the crime drop and real estate boom of the past 10 or so years. The city is not moving fast enough, and IMO, Michelle Rhee needs to fore more administrators and piss more of the sluggish Marion Barry era deadweight people off so that they leave for Ward 9 or Charles County.

I agree- the schools are a huge problem here.

FIX THEM NOW PLEASE !!!!!

by w on Dec 2, 2009 12:24 pm  

Concur with Miriam, NAB, and Thayer. IMO, one of the biggest things keeping people, especially families with children, from moving back into the city (not just in DC but elsewhere in the country) is the generally dismal status of the city's school system.

by Froggie on Dec 2, 2009 12:26 pm  

People have been trying to fix DCPS for a while. I love how the prime suggestion on this thread is to "fix them". You guys are so self-absorbed. You really think that no one cared about public schools before the dumb-growth movement came along?

by MPC on Dec 2, 2009 6:18 pm  

"Fix the schools, please."

Ok, sure thing. You've got my buy-in.

Now, what exactly do you propose?

by Alex B. on Dec 2, 2009 7:12 pm  

Hartford was dying well before they tried to have more parking downtown. It's one of the poorest cities in the country. Find an example that isn't spo measy to debunk.

by Rich on Dec 2, 2009 11:38 pm  

"Fix the schools, please."

Ok, sure thing. You've got my buy-in.

Now, what exactly do you propose?

i think douglas rushkoff had the best answer i've heard so far. it is, unfortunately, just obvious -- real time/effort/work required by folks organizing to make their communities/schools better. but, i think it's possible. just takes two to 'buy-in', and then you're off.

by Peter Smith on Dec 3, 2009 4:16 am  

Hartford was dying like just about every other city in America. But now cities are coming back for reasons that everybody here is aware of. What Hartford did though was stick a knife through it's heart by buying into the claptrap of competing with officeparks because "everybody wants to drive". So they tore up their mixed-use, humanly scaled, pedestrian friendly historic core and now have nothing to bounce back with now that the outer suburbs are now in slow decline. Ironically, if a neighborhood went down hill before the full flower of "urban renewal", it would usually have the goods (humane fabric) and therefore an advantage to make a comeback now that we're over our quest to all live like the Jetsons. (1939 World's Fair/Corb)

As for fixing the schools, I think it's a matter of raising the kids. The money per pupil in DC I hear is adequate compared to the suburbs, but when you have no men raising the boys you get anarchy, and that's what's really disfunctional about our schools. It's socioligical. If the city dosen't step in, I'm afraid there's no hope.

by Thayer-D on Dec 3, 2009 9:00 am