I lived in Foggy Bottom bottom for 10 years before moving to Adams Morgan and the difference is just striking. You will rarely see children in Foggy Bottom, or even people walking dogs. It's an incredibly transient area and most of the housing is studio/one bedrooms; the newer units planned for L/M and area may be larger but they will command a premium price. Large amounts of the existing housing, it seems, are used by graduate students and the international community. The 160-unit condo building I lived in was typical; at least half the floor changed out with new residents ever two years. In all, the number of truly permanent residents in that building was just a fraction of the total.

The area by the West End Library already has a quite a bit of housing, extending down L and I think the plan to add more will just add more of the same. There's little life because the neighborhood doesn't really have any local hangout places. All the new construction on 24th & M and even the Trader's Joe, are largely sterile areas. Sure, lots of news units but it all feels so disconnected, isolated. The types of businesses that set up shop there -- with the exception of a few such as Dupont Hardware now on 24th near L -- are typically the same kind that populate K and L closer to the business district.

The West End Library development project won't fix this; it almost seems like a Ritz clone in style. And the types of businesses likely to take up space on the ground floor will probably be just more of the same chain-stuff.

Don't get me wrong. Foggy Bottom is a nice place to live for a lot reasons, and you can make friends there but you just have to work at it because the natural gathering places, with a couple of exceptions, just aren't there. The rental ratios in a lot of the condos are high. The location is incredible and it's a short walk to everything, and some of the streets, especially 25th, are gorgeous. It's also far safer than most other neighborhoods. I never worried about crime. And you can buy a townhouse there for third or so less than something similar in Georgetown and even Dupont for that matter, and the condos, if you don't mind small, can be reasonably priced, although many of the buildings are full service and have high monthly fees. And while I enjoyed living there, I now feel that I'm living in a neighborhood where people have actually feel that it's home, and not just place to live for a few years.

by kob on Jun 14, 2008 11:56 am  

Let’s be clear – the current desire to build is not about bringing beneficial density to this city. It’s about greed. I used to have an apartment in a row house, we negotiated our way out, under pressure from the landlord, and now the units in the row house have gone condo, and the management company has kept two as rentals. The monthly price for those rentals? $3000. (I paid about $950 for my 1 BR)

That is what this housing push is about.

And, families of more than three do not want to live in condos. Period.

Therefore, what happens if deals like the bad West End one (and I’m sorry to see it has come back to life. I thought we had killed it) go through is people who were formerly known as “residents” and “citizens” now become “consumers,” and are thought of by city officials eventually and developers always as hotel guests. There will not be many families. It will be a city of single people from somewhere else trying to get theirs and get out – a bit like now, in NW, but much much worse.

All these discussions and blogs leave out one thing: the family.

But ok, fine. Forget having a family. Let’s just deal with the singles. Unless you make at least $125,000, you are priced out of the market. There is simply no way. If you make $45,000, there is some place in Vienna with your name on it, if you are lucky.

Until the discussions and blogs like this one take into account the human factor (in terms of design, affordability, among other factors), then they make for frustrating reads.

by it's me silly on Jun 14, 2008 2:27 pm  

I fully agree with both comments above, there is no way in hell the foggy bottom area will turn a real neighborhood no matter what you do.

Everybody does not want condos plain and simple, you will not catch a family in a condo anywhere outside of extremly overcrowded places or places that really lack area for real houses like the City of New York, Tokoyo, London or Amsterdam.

Of all the people I know that live in condos none of the have children except one and that child is a baby, because really there is no where for children to play in a condo.

At the rate were building condos here, by 2010 DC will be full of them in all quadrants, with no one buying. There are more things needed to get people especally with families to by condos besides close to work, or live in the city.

Look at in these prospectives.

Seniors

Single People

Families

Would Seniors buy in foggy bottom nope to many college kids to much noise.

Single people yes they would purchase because its a hip area for young people, and i guarantee within 2 years they wont be there. They would have got what they want maybe a job, a degree at a local university, finished an internship etc.

Families hell no what are there is for children, schools from elementary thur high around within resonable distance no, daycare or preschool for babies and children not school age no some employers may providedaycare but not all, library, park, area to play, sports teams or other activies a child could do hell no. Would a family move into an area around with a bunch of college kids, bars, nightclubs, party goers fuck no.

so really the only people that would be buying these are young singles or parents buying them for there college age children and when they either, get married, have children, got higher paying job, graduated from a college or university there gone really quick.

In fact anyone buying condos down town you can almost exclude anyone that is over 40 or under that has children there is maybe one school downtown and that is near dupont circle so you can forget families moving anywhere around, Penn Quarter, Metro Center, Farragut Square and possibly Foggy Bottom and Thomas Circle.

by kk on Jun 14, 2008 9:38 pm  

Foggy Bottom has lots of housing and the library site will have little if any effect on whether there's any life in the area. Even the GW campus is dead on weekends. The scale of the area and the mix of commercial businesses probably have some impact. Dupont & Georgetown are on smaller scales and have a mix of businesses that appeal to workers, residents, and tourists. The West End has none of that, basically just a lot of services for daytime workers and a few stretches of restaurants.

The process by which places gain life is semi-mysterious. Bethesda used to be totally dead at night despite having a fairly vital commercial district and many restaurants; now its fairly lively. There's more housing and the retail is a bit more trendy than it used to be, but the process seems a bit mysterious. Downtown Silver Spring is fairly lively Unlike, say downtown Silver Spring, crime has never been an issue in Bethesda. Silver Spring is fairly during the day, but not really at night. It's still got a lot of crime. In addition, the transit center is poorly integrated with everything else (unlike Bethesda) and the pedestrian environment could be better (although its no more confusing than Bethesda). Still, it seems more alive than it was 10 years ago. In short, it's difficult to know what would "fix" the West End if you look at what's happened elsewhere. If I lived there, I'd probably look for proximity to Georgetown or Dupont and a Isuspect that people who want some urban life have done just that, which may make things more difficult for making the West End work for itself.

by Rich on Jun 15, 2008 12:07 pm  

kk,

You obviously have not spent any time south of Mass Ave. The area in discussion actually has a k-8 public school, a city library, baseball fields, a swimming pool, running trails, a community garden and a grocery store. All in a few blocks walk. I also can't think of one bar between k and n, 21st and 26th, and hey, maybe that's the problem.

Are people with kids choosing not to live in the West end/Foggy Bottom area because it's a bad place for kids, or because they're just aren't housing options big enough? I know in my building of 60+ units, only 3 are 2 bedrooms. Everything else is smaller. I love the area, and I personally think Francis Pool and Trader Joes are great community builders, but I don't know if I can stay in the area forever because I don't know if there will be large enough apartments for me to consider.

by Alex on Jun 16, 2008 10:44 am  

Yep, that is the point. The talk about condos is about generating profit and little else. If you are part of a family, I suggest you advocate to your councilperson. Otherwise, be prepared to be bowled over by the developers.

They tear down row houses and put up condos.

by it's me silly on Jun 16, 2008 7:20 pm  

@Alex

Are you talking about a specific area because i dont know what you consider foggy bottom but i consider it the area around gw not just below mass ave because the area below mass ave would still be considered dupont circle.

What k-8 school is there unless its private the only schools i recall around there are school without walls in foggy bottom, stevens in westend and francis which would be in the border area of west end and dupont circle and Duke Ellington high near georgetown hospital.

I don't recall any of those being within a few blocks of each other, since when are they 3 or less blocks apart.

and the part of bars between k and n, 21 and 26th streets thats not all of westend and foggy bottom.

Answer this how many families with childrens between 8 and 16 do you know live in the area.

"Are people with kids choosing not to live in the West end/Foggy Bottom area because it's a bad place for kids, or because they're just aren't housing options big enough? I know in my building of 60+ units, only 3 are 2 bedrooms. Everything else is smaller."

Thats my point people with families want houses, not apartments or condos. Even if there were 4 or 5 bedroom condos which there are in dc in some areas how many people with children live in them or would live in them. The point about families living in the area its not cost effective, even if you do find a 4 bedroom or condo it will likely be almost a million and that may price families out of the market because of other expenses they have.

by kk on Jun 16, 2008 7:57 pm  

Interesting thread. The family vs single person isn't a conversation I commonly see.

Here are a few disjointed thoughts of mine in response to some of the talking points:

* A complaint that a 1BR no longer rents for $950? No sympathy here. I've lived in 'group house' situations for many years until I bought my condo. That's what I had to do to keep my rent low to pay off my student loans and save a downpayment. If you don't want to pay alot there are tradeoffs you can make like location or living with roommates. You can't just expect the market to leave units sitting out there for 1/3 what a condo would go for.

* I had always figured that the district's poor schools fueled the lack of demand by families. Of course the school system isn't going to change over night. It's going to take 20-25 years. This is probably an oversimplification (possibly even slightly inaccurate)... but it has looked to me like the mayor's plan is to gradually revamp a few schools but primarily focus on attracting new residents(singles/dinks?)/businesses to the district to raise our tax base. As tax revenues increase eventually they'll be even more funding for schools.

* "Thats my point people with families want houses, not apartments or condos." There are many arguments for why condos/apts get built instead of houses. Take your pick. City planners (rightly) want density around metro stops. Mixed use planning also relies on density as prospective retailers are looking for site locations with pedestrian traffic. Investors that back new construction have choices on where to direct their money. With land costs such as they are, building big/tall is going to be more attractive than building 2/3 story townhouses. I'm not sure how you can begrudge the investors. I'm sure most of us have investments even if it's just a 401K. Doesn't it make you greedy when you choose one investment with a higher yield above another?

*There are rowhouses and/or houses in Hilleast, Petworth, Brightwood, Brookland, etc that are less than $500K. You may need to put a little work into them. But if having a house in the district rather than a condo is important to you I suggest you take the plunge on one in an emerging new neighborhood now. Obsessing that you've been priced out of buying a house next to a metro stop, whole foods and amenity filled corridor isn't productive for anyone.

by F&E on Jun 17, 2008 6:54 am  

Of course, 950 is below market rate, but $3000? That is one thing and one thing only: executive rental. Ie, turning a livable city into one huge hotel chain. Investor owned. Regular people need not apply.

by are you a builder? on Jun 17, 2008 7:51 am  

Am I a builder? Hardly. Didn't you see the part where I said I had to live in a group house for many years? I doubt Jemal or Clark have done that recently if ever.=)

I can't speak to the $3000 because I don't know the specifics of that property. But I'm familiar with the rental market along the Ballston to Rosslyn corridor. That corridor is just as "gentrified" as some of the DC Neighborhoods mentioned in this discussion. Within blocks of the metro of the metro I know people renting a 1BR between $1400 and $2000. Certainly no builder is mass producing new hi-rise construction to only rent 1BRs for $1400. But you can find rentals off craiglist for english basements, subdivided houses, etc.. Older housing stock. Personally, I chose to rent with roommates for $700 and dump that $700-1300 savings into savings to eventually buy.

While my vocation is computer programmer today I was an Econ major in college. So I understand markets. I think most of the diehard blog readers do as well since we're an educated group of people. It's just that resentment of the impact markets have on what people can afford sometimes clouds their vision.

by F&E on Jun 17, 2008 8:29 am  

Sorry, I should have clarified that at the end of my stay in that unit, I was paying more than $950 per month, it's just that at the start, I was paying less, and $950 was about the average. It was certainly no great shakes, and was not worth $1100 in my opinion, but since there was nothing and I mean nothing else in that range available, I stayed.

Yes, the schools have something to do with the situation and families. No doubt. So does housing. And, what about the families who are already here? Do they exist? Or are they just factored in as entities to be gently or not so gently moved out, as the markets dictate?

As for what the plan is or was, the person who was mayor before Fenty, Anthony Williams talked a lot about luring people back into DC. If memory serves, he said he wanted FAMILIES. So, I don't know how all the condos square with a desire to lure families back to the city.

Again, building tall more than anything serves the short-term profits of the builders. It just does. It destroys livability and scale, and again, the human factor is gone out the window. Building tall will most definitely NOT lure families back into the city.

There are other ways. The question is, will people have the openness and patience to sit down and work together to figure them out.

You understand markets. Fine. What about people?

by it's me silly on Jun 17, 2008 9:32 am  

The conversation seemed to be steered towards the West End Library redevelopment, I was addressing that area. Francis will be a k-8 school starting next year.

I hardly think that 8-12 story buildings destroy the livability of scale. I also don't think every family in metro DC is opposed to living in a multifamily development. In fact I know quite a few people through work who have condos in the Ballston-Roslyn corridor and have children. They live there over DC because of the perceived gain in educational value and the lower cost of larger units. It's a misconception to think that only gays, singles and DINKs want to live in the heart of the city.

And to the $950 a month rental unit, supposing that was 5 years ago, average rent inflation District wide would put that unit at about $1300 a month with no improvements. Considering this area has a higher demand it would likely be higher than that-- without improvements. The owner likely did what had to be done to keep his place attractive, he couldn't fix it and continue renting to you for $950. And $3000 for a 1 br is doable for a household making about 90k a year if they forgo a car. 2 metro riding non-profit workers making 45k a year hardly constitutes an elite economic group.

by Alex on Jun 17, 2008 12:12 pm  

"Again, building tall more than anything serves the short-term profits of the builders. It just does. It destroys livability and scale, and again, the human factor is gone out the window. Building tall will most definitely NOT lure families back into the city."

Say the city gave the Old Convention Center land to a developer for free but required that the land be developed as 2 story townhomes with high caliber construction, back yards and small drive ways and sell them for < $450K. Basically similar to a subdivision you might find in Vienna. Great, some families that don't make a million dollars could afford to be the initial buyers. But you can only artificially suppress the market forces so long. The initial buyers of those homes would shortly flip the houses and double or triple their money as very wealthy people would move in. In effect all you've really done is help those initial buyers make lots of $$. What would the city have to show for that? They'd have no tax revenue from office, hotel or retail from that property. The income tax revenue would also be smaller due the lower density of residences.

There are neighborhoods in D.C. were a family can buy homes and rowhouses that are below $500K. As I mentioned earlier try Brookland, Petworth, Hilleast, etc.. Being bitter that perfectly scaled and affordable homes for families are not available in Logan Circle, Penn Quarter, Georgetown or Capitol Hill is pointless.

by F&E on Jun 17, 2008 1:29 pm  

Interesting thread.

The community visioning sessions were open to all, and there was a remarkable consensus: the residents wanted housing, housing, and more housing. They were willing to accept a mix of high-end condos, so long as there was also moderate to upscale rential, and some affordable housing. There was also some talk of workforce housing as part of either this or a future project. Nobody wanted this to be a block of condos for the super-rich and a few sterile national chains taking up first floor street space.

There will be trade-offs and priorities to deal with here.

If the process moves to fruition, I imagine we'll have to decide how many library amenities we're willing to forego in order to get how much more affordable housing. We won't be able to get a developer to pay more than X dollars for a library and also to subisidize affordable housing. The community will have to decide how to divvy up those X dollars between affordable housing and library.

It really was a rewarding experience, participating with residents who have seen their neighborhood eviscerated by GWU expansions, as they joined together to envision what might be. They seem to understand the value of Square 37, and want to leverage it into a residential block that will attract folks who want to live within walking distance of work...and want to live year-round in a neighborhood that's coming back to life.

None of us know if this will end well, but there seems to be a lot of good will and effort to make it happen.

by Mike Silverstein on Jun 17, 2008 5:15 pm