Hmmm, I'm already seeing the CAG's proposed solution to this crisis coming together. The cornerstone will be bulldozing three or four Georgetown University dormitories, with their worthless part-time residents, and replacing them with $4,000,000 condos and townhouses. Voila!

And, of course, a modification of the DCHRA so that they can go ahead and impose that "no more than three unrelated persons" requirement for single family dwellings in 20007. That should knock out a lot of the graduate and medical students, also part-timer scum.

by Dizzy on Jul 12, 2011 3:34 pm • link • report

This is either a thinly-veiled attack on students (it doesn't mention students at all) or I'm missing something here. Is it?

by Tim on Jul 12, 2011 3:41 pm • link • report

Yeah, I would think that students would make up a pretty large chunk of part time residents in Georgetown (probably more than the Georgetown population at large)

by Steven Yates on Jul 12, 2011 3:55 pm • link • report

Sorry to disappoint you, but this has not much to do with students. In fact, the vacancy rates are higher on the east side, which generally had fewer students living in it. But it does have more expensive homes, and in my experience the wealthier the homeowner, the higher the likelihood they have multiple homes to spend their time in. My theory is that it's just a feature of the neighborhood (i.e. high concentration of wealthy and/or retired residents) that has the unfortunate effect of lowering the true density of the neighborhood and subsequently the neighborhood's ability to support places like Sara's or Griffin Market. Having students around to patronize these stores is a good thing! One could argue, however, that too much student density drives out the less than very wealthy who also could patronize these stores more than the truly wealthy, but that's not an argument I am factually able or, frankly, terribly interested in making.

So, no. If this has anything to do with students, it's tangential. Sorry for not spelling it out more. It was late and the Tour de France was on. Go Andy Schleck!

by Topher Mathews on Jul 12, 2011 4:15 pm • link • report

April 1st, Census day, was in Georgetown's 2010 Easter break. A break that's taken pretty serious, given the catholic nature of the school.

by Jasper on Jul 12, 2011 4:18 pm • link • report

I used ACS data, which isn't a "snapshot". It weakens the data for other reasons (namely sample rate error) but not because students were on Easter Break.

by Topher Mathews on Jul 12, 2011 4:28 pm • link • report

@Jasper -- While there are problems with counting college students, April 1 is simply a reference day. Very little counting is done on that actual day. People are asked about their usual residence, which is spelled out in fairly painstaking detail. So being on Easter break shouldn't really matter.

by Kate W. on Jul 12, 2011 4:30 pm • link • report

Good observation. This is a function of what Loretta Lees calls "supergentrification" and is a problem in cities like Washington, London, Charleston, etc.

This article ran last week in the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/nyregion/more-apartments-are-empty-yet-rented-or-owned-census-finds.html

I've thought that this is an issue downtown as well. You look at many of those condo buildings and they are dark at night.

by Richard Layman on Jul 12, 2011 4:32 pm • link • report

@ Jasper:
April 1 is a reference day and for most college students, their dorm/off campus residence is considered a home. The problem lies with students not filling in their forms on time and not being around when the enumerators show up in May/June.

by John M on Jul 12, 2011 4:40 pm • link • report

Topher is not part of the usual drive the student out of Georgetown crowd. And it does seem like he is going after rich people with multiple houses.

That being said, I am very suspicious of the underlying data here.

by charlie on Jul 12, 2011 4:48 pm • link • report

I'm not sure that this situation in Georgetown will change in the near, or even semi-distant, future.

by Fitz157 on Jul 12, 2011 4:55 pm • link • report

I would guess that a big chunk of these are people who, as the article says, own multiple homes and choose somewhere other than DC as their "primary" home for tax purposes (regardless of where they actually live most of the time.) Maybe they're just trying to cover their bases by reflecting that in the census (though it's unnecessary I think since nobody cross-checks the two).

by MLD on Jul 12, 2011 5:00 pm • link • report

Ah, okay. I seriously couldn't tell if it was a jab at students.

by Tim on Jul 12, 2011 5:01 pm • link • report

Supergentrification. Great.

by andrew on Jul 12, 2011 5:07 pm • link • report

@charlie

Topher is not part of the usual drive the student out of Georgetown crowd. And it does seem like he is going after rich people with multiple houses.

True enough. However, Topher is also the Secretary of the Citizens Association of Georgetown, so when I see him putting forward an argument whose central thesis is "Georgetown retail is endangered by non-year-round residents," I get nervous. Because even if Topher is "not terribly interested" in making the logical leap, others certainly are.

Now, I happen to think there's some problems with the overall logic. Neighbors are not obligated to patronize any and all neighborhood business, and if certain ones fail to meet the needs of the neighborhood, then perhaps they should be replaced by something more appropriate. (Or, in the case of Philly P, they meet the needs of a certain segment of the neighborhood too well and get run out of town).

In the case of Sara's Market and Griffin Market, I think it's as much a case of Georgetowners choosing to go to Dean & Deluca instead as it is that non-year-round residents are depriving these businesses of money that they've come to count on.

by Dizzy on Jul 12, 2011 5:34 pm • link • report

This is not a problem with just Georgetown. Look into any of the condo buildings (how many apartment buildings are left, anyway) and note how many are rented out as executive suites. Lots of the new trends have favored people who invest rather than live here. It can happen in one building alone, and it's something to fight always. The city should be first and foremost a place to LIVE.

I think whatever happens in Georgetown is kind of unique to Georgetown. It always struck me as one of the more stable places in Northwest.

by Jazzy on Jul 12, 2011 6:09 pm • link • report

My friend is a part timer in Georgetown. For residency/tax reasons he can only stay in DC half a year minus one day.

by NikolasM on Jul 12, 2011 6:12 pm • link • report

After reading that ridiculous barb at suburbs, I suspected the rest of this blog post would be garbage. Disappointed I was right.

by TGEoA on Jul 12, 2011 9:12 pm • link • report

Re: the census

Students are generally counted at their university residence for the census, and this last census there was a big push on the part of both the Fenty folks and the universities to try to get (relatively) high follow-through by students. I know at American pretty much anyone who still lived on-campus was counted. Not sure how thoroughly they counted the kids in the neighborhoods, or how comparatively aggressive the other schools were, but students were probably more accounted for in DC this last time around than the time or two before.

by ADW on Jul 12, 2011 9:15 pm • link • report

Would it make more sense to compare Georgetown to other similarly dense neighborhoods in DC, like Capitol Hill or Logan Circle? To me, the Palisades, AU Park, and large parts of Cleveland Park have more in common with inside-the-beltway suburban neighborhoods like Del Ray, Chevy Chase MD, and maybe Aurora Highlands or Lyon Village.

by OldTowner on Jul 12, 2011 9:19 pm • link • report

I hear Naples Florida has the same problem during the summers. Ditto Tucson where I once lived. Some places tend to be more seasonal than others, and some, like Georgetown, have the added distinction of being 'home' to people who consider themselves 'at home' in several states ... or countries. Yes, the number and quality of stores in places (i.e., the supply) tends to adjust to the demand. And so? I'm not sure I get the point of this posting ...

by Lance on Jul 12, 2011 10:18 pm • link • report

Maybe the issue of Sara's Market has less to do with the population density of Georgetown and more with whether the residents are prone to patronize a small local grocery like Sara's Market or Griffin Market.

by Scoot on Jul 12, 2011 10:50 pm • link • report

So the conclusion is that wealthy people are more likely to own--and use--a second home? I'm not sure exactly what this piece is driving at. Interesting data, for sure, but what's the point? It's pure conjecture to say that retail is endangered by part-time residents. Shouldn't retail options reflect the needs of the surrounding population, and not the other way around?

by MJ on Jul 13, 2011 9:11 am • link • report

The point is that the more housing stock that is owned/rented by out-of-towner itinerant residents, the more difficult it is to support local retail, especially that focused on convenience good sales (food, hardware, etc.) to permanent residents.

This article isn't completely relevant but is still interesting nonetheless:

http://wwwcache1.kcl.ac.uk/content/1/c4/98/91/UrbanStudies2003compressed.pdf

by Richard Layman on Jul 13, 2011 10:06 am • link • report

Richard Layman said 'The point is that the more housing stock that is owned/rented by out-of-towner itinerant residents, the more difficult it is to support local retail, especially that focused on convenience good sales (food, hardware, etc.) to permanent residents.'

Except as MJ pointed out (and I aluded to), that's looking at the situation backwards. The surrounding retail is there to serve to needs of the residents, and not vice-versa. And in this case, the needs of the surrounding residents are such that they apparently don't need these corner markets to be operating full time during the summer. And what's wrong with that?

Unless, of course, one is assuming that 'everyone should have my the same needs and expecatations as I have ... as they're the best ... and we need to fix things so that they support my needs and expectations.'

That's a view on see on here a lot ... and a view that got Tommy Wells in big trouble. It's an inability to understand that there are no simple 'one right answer for everything' situations in life. Unfortunatly, people who have that life view become self-righteous because they're unable to entertain the idea that what is right for them may not be right for others. And, that more importantly, they have no right to force their views on others.

I think the earlier poster on here who said that Topher was just thinking what was best for him figured out the issue here. Fortunately, we still live in a democracy and a market economy where 'the people's republic of smartgrowth' can't dictate whether people can have part time homes or not.

by Lance on Jul 13, 2011 10:49 am • link • report

I understand that but one of the charms of georgetown are the little corner stores. but that charm has led to an environment that might actually spell the doom of those stores. I don't think there is necessarily anything to be done about it. But once stores start closing and people ask why that could be illuminated as one of the reasons.

by Canaan on Jul 13, 2011 11:10 am • link • report

Is this the same Lance who is always telling us that students have no right to a voice in D.C. because they are not living here all the time?

by tt on Jul 13, 2011 11:13 am • link • report

@tt Is this the same Lance who is always telling us that students have no right to a voice in D.C. because they are not living here all the time?

I never said such a thing. I said something about only residents having a voice in matters that concern their neighborhood or city, but never said students who are residents shouldn't have a voice. I think the issue might be that many students aren't resident where they're going to school but rather retain their ties to their former localities. This is how the law views it and I'm fully in agreement with the law. Maybe you're not?

by Lance on Jul 13, 2011 12:31 pm • link • report

Of course, this comment by TT which is obviously a twisted assertion which has far less to do with the subject of this thread, and far more to do with an attempt to personally attack me, will most likely stand ... because as Hog Wash pointed out yesterday, there really are 2 different standards for censoring on this blog.

by Lance on Jul 13, 2011 12:33 pm • link • report

I'm not sure if this article addressed the question of whether G'town is CHANGING. Have people always gone away in G'town? Have some people but not everyone and now more and more maybe even a majority are? G'town has been rich for a long long time. Many have had the resources to go away for the summer. What's changed?

Then, in many ways Georgetown is an area of town to emulate. They invest emotionally, intellectually and financially in their community. They put down roots, it seems, more than other places. And this is what needs to be encourage. I wonder about GGW's intentions or this author's. If transcience is to be discouraged, why all the cheerleading about the insta-condos sprouting up all over the city?

by Jazzy on Jul 13, 2011 1:27 pm • link • report

Lance -- I hate to be critical here, I think your argument about people not wanting stores in their neighborhood is pretty foolish--with provisos based on size, scale, etc. I don't think there's any proof anywhere that this is what people want. It's a big tenet of new urbanism, the food security folks, etc. If you were to do surveys, by neighborhood, I am pretty sure you would find a majority of people want appropriately-scaled retail within their neighborhoods.

Retail business success is completely dependent on population served--its demographics (size, income distribution, etc.). Businesses need a certain amount of base population to succeed. For convenience stores, which is comparable to a corner market, at least 3,000 people. But those numbers are based on gas-based stores, so you'd need more people to support one not selling gas. So fewer people in seemingly occupied buildings provides fewer customers to support businesses. I don't see what's so hard to understand.

You are arguing that people aren't shopping in the extant businesses. What the post posits is that since regular residency is, on average, low, there aren't enough customers to stay open. (Contrast this with the two corner markets on the 400 block of E. Capitol SE/NE).

Of course, the problem is that people say they want local stores selling goods but they want to pay low prices too, and it's almost impossible for small stores to successfully provide low prices because they don't have the volume.

So it ends up being a micron of truth in your argument generally, but probably not in Georgetown. People may not shop at those stores because the prices are too high (but in Georgetown, likely that's less of an issue). The only way to really know would be to do a good study, including qualitative interviews.

by Richard Layman on Jul 13, 2011 2:19 pm • link • report

Richard,

In this particular case, I think it's less that people don't want stores in their neighborhood and more that they either already have the stores they want or they're not overly inconvenienced by the lack of one. If you live in Georgetown and want groceries, chances are you're either heading up to the 24-hour Supersocial Safeway or Whole Foods (likely by car, but not necessarily) or, in the east village, to Harris Teeter near Foggy Bottom Metro (there will be a Whole Foods in Foggy Bottom starting in September).

If you want to do a quick "run to the corner store" that doesn't require the hassle of getting out to those places, Dean & Deluca is doing steady business despite their very steep prices, and other options (CVS, 7-11, the aforementioned markets, Le Petit Corner Store, Marvelous Market, Vital Vittles on the university's campus, etc.) are scattered throughout.

Given this state of affairs, I'm really unconvinced that the reason these two stores are having issues is that Georgetown has insufficient density due to non-full-time residents. I don't think the thesis has been proven at all.

by Dizzy on Jul 13, 2011 2:48 pm • link • report

As someone who actually lives in Georgetown (and has since 2007,) there are kernels of truth in the article, in that the eastern portion of Georgetown does feel less full and dense than the western side.

Moreover, I do think the student population does make a bit of a difference, if only because the 'hood loses some student population in the summer (and trades some of them in for students from other, less-tony colleges.)

I'm a little suspicious of the numbers and percentages at play here as well. It just doesn't SEEM right from a person on the streets, in the shops and living the life in Georgetown. To put this another way, there are plenty of places that have building densities but feel and are empty. Georgetown NEVER feels empty, nor does it look empty. That duck ain't quacking, and you know what they say...

It's interesting that the two businesses quoted were small, local markets. There might be something to the idea that these small, local markets fill less of a need now than they did before. For example, if I want grocery staples, I have PeaPod deliver or go to Social Safeway. If I want overpriced foo-foo food, I go to Dean & Deluca. If I want medium priced foo-foo food, I go to Trader Joes. Perhaps the market has changed and these markets haven't kept up.

Finally, there might be a location issue as well. M Street and to a lesser extend, Wisconsin, have really pulled most of the retail nearer to them, creating a "zone" where people expect to shop. Granted, these streets have the benefits of tourists as well, but it's interesting to note that SweetGreen launched successfully here (and wasn't a chain initially,) Georgetown Cupcake has a line full of idiots stretching back to Prospect, and Eat & Joy is doing great business (and making the best basmati rice in town) off 34th.

So...perhaps it's more of a combination of providing goods and services that people don't really want, with locations that people don't associate with shopping...or they can't find...or they don't care. That seems much more likely than "Georgetown is so empty that businesses can't succeed."

by Aaron on Jul 13, 2011 3:19 pm • link • report

I think Dizzy just made an excellent point and the effect of CVS on the closing of small neighborhood markets can't be ignored.

Many CVS stores carry all the same items a typical corner market would carry plus more---and many are usually open 24 hrs. I don't see why any neighborhood that has a CVS and a 7-11 would really need a corner market.

Sad--but true.

by LuvDusty on Jul 13, 2011 3:23 pm • link • report

I also wanted to add that the undercurrent of the article seems to imply that there's this war between local business and chain businesses, both posh and pedestrian. That war is over. The chains won. Isn't that obvious to anyone who's been on M Street?

by Aaron on Jul 13, 2011 3:24 pm • link • report

Dizzy,
I think you might be completely right, but I don't think you're quite getting what I'm saying. This isn't just about Sara's or Griffin Market. Sara's is doing fine and Griffin closed for a bunch of disputed reasons, only one of which is depressed sales. The point I'm trying to make, and obviously not succeeding at, is that given the housing density of Georgetown you would expect a certain demand for certain stores. Yes, some stores might fail for simply not being good enough. But what I'm suggesting is that the overall demand is likely depressed given the likelihood that the actually density is not as much as the building density would imply. Lots of things go into that. Having a lot of homes occupied by retirees (instead of young families) is one factor. I'm merely suggesting that another factor might be that Georgetown may have a disproportionately large temporary population.

I don't have figures to prove that demand is low compared with the housing density. That would be a lot more conclusive. But that's why I wrote "these aren't definitive statistics." They're not, but they're consistent with the anecdotal evidence I've seen (either from speaking with shopkeepers or simply walking around the neighborhood at night and seeing few houselights).

What I'm not saying is that that is why all shops close in Georgetown. And I'm certainly not suggesting, as has been repeatedly assumed, that we can or even should do anything about it. I'm merely noting it and suggesting its possible effects.

by Topher Mathews on Jul 13, 2011 3:39 pm • link • report

@Richard 'People may not shop at those stores because the prices are too high (but in Georgetown, likely that's less of an issue).

how about instead 'People may not shop at those stores because the prices are too high relative to what you'll find to purchase there (and even in Georgetown, competition is an issue).

Even wealthy people are careful on how they spend their money. They want value for their dollars. Through casual observance I'd even venture to say that they're far more demanding for their dollars than the average person. I.e., They want ... and get ... a bargain far more than the average person. So, while Topher may be willing to pay a high price for the convenience of being able to walk to that corner store for an overpriced can of soup or slightly dated tomatoes, the wealthier neighbor is far more likely to jump into their Mercedes and go by the same items (for less $$$) at the local Safeway AND be back at their homes before Topher's had a chance to walk home through the heat and/or rain. These folks now also have the option of going to Dean and Deluca and having a whole store full of high end items to choose from ... probably for less $$$ than what those corner stores charge for their far more limited selection.

These folks have adapted to a 21st century lifestyle that includes benefiting from the economies of scale possible when you have larger stores ... and those stores draw from a wider geographical area ... even if that area is a neighborhood vs. a corner.

Topher wants a return to the idealistic late 19th century 'convenience' of having fewer (and higher priced) goods available within a short walk from his home. And he wants these folks to want that too ... because it's the right thing to do ...hmmm .. for the planet of course! And don't go using any plastic bags to do it either!!!!

by Lance on Jul 13, 2011 3:41 pm • link • report

@Topher And I'm certainly not suggesting, as has been repeatedly assumed, that we can or even should do anything about it. I'm merely noting it and suggesting its possible effects.

Fair enough. It sounds like you're moving toward the direction of understanding that there may be a disconnect between what some so-called urbanists or smartgrowthers say is 'good' for us ... and what people actually voting with their dollars (and with their feet) are saying IS good for them.

by Lance on Jul 13, 2011 3:49 pm • link • report

@Tim & Topher (&Ken &David)

I think it's indicative that GGW readers now seem to expect that any post about Georgetown will involve some criticism of the University or its students--or both. As an undergraduate alumnus and current graduate student, I find that automatic reaction to be disappointing, and maybe unfair. But David and Ken and Topher could go a long way by clarifying what they mean by "Smart Growth" in the Georgetown context, since readers (many of whom are current or former students or residents) seem to view GGW's contributors' positions as "make the gown stop messing up the town."

For example, it is important to discuss "transit" and how it provides access to the area, including shops(http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/10283/georgetown-u-needs-to-manage-transportation-demand/). And we also have to consider expensive projects that to maintain the neighborhood's charm (http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/10775/dc-begins-removing-old-streetcar-tracks/). But we can't want both without being counter-productive, in this case, truncating the G2 at Wisconsin Ave. and cutting off the only MetroBus service to the Main Campus for more than a year (http://wmata.com/bus/metrobus_detours_new.cfm?#17465).

GGW and its contribs would do well to recognize that long-time residents (permanent and seasonal), new residents like Kens and Tophers, students (undergraduate AND graduate), the university (administration and commuting employees), shop owners, and visitors all ahve interests to be considered; none at the expense of or imposed on another.

And if any of you were rich enough to have a house in East Georgetown and one in East Hampton, would YOU want to suffer through a DC summer just to patronize T Sweets? I'd think not. Let's be realistic.

by Ronald on Jul 13, 2011 4:53 pm • link • report

@Ronald, your point is well taken, as a Georgetown resident for ten of the last 14 years, and generally a supporter of the University.

I would say, though, that while several of Ken's post have had a distinct anti-GU (or anti-student, or to use his terms, "anti-student ghetto) slant, Topher's, either here or on Georgetown Metropolitan, largely stay out of that debate, regardless of what his personal feelings may be. (Some of the GM commentariat, on the other hand...). I think Topher's posts, including this one, are most often focused on walkability and how Georgetown can become a more functional, less car-dependent neighborhood, and what factors may be keeping that from happening. And I took this post as another one in that vein.

by Jacques on Jul 13, 2011 5:14 pm • link • report

1st - Apologies for the previous iPhone typos.

@Jacques

That's fair, and ther's definitely a large gulf between Topher's PoP-type post, and Ken's...opinions. But it's relevant that by now GGW readers seem to assume that any GGW post about Georgetown is an overt or implied complaint against the University and its students. That's irritating. But maybe there's a kernel of truth in those kinds of instinctive reactions.

For better or worse, GGW's gotten to the point where people rely on it for information about the DC Area as much as they look to the Current, DeBonis, Kojo, City Paper, and the like. What's more, "smart growth" urbanites in particular look to GGW as a way to identify the next big issues and organize approaches to them. And for people who don't live in a particular neighborhood, GGW's posts provide a lot of the only information about (and shape opinions about) that area. So it's important to be responsible and present that information fairly.

Tim's reaction seems to indicate that, regarding Georgetown, GGW may not be doing as well as it could. GGW could play an important role in Georgetown planning. As it is, a lot of people now see GGW as an "UnsuckGeorgetownUniversity" rant blog. That's unfortunate, and not very constructive.

by Ronald on Jul 14, 2011 9:10 am • link • report