Whites with kids have been leaving DC since the 1954 school integration.

Young white liberals today just come up with better excuses on their way out.

by Tom Coumaris on May 26, 2012 3:04 pm • link • report

Exactly, Tom: that article was completely about race.

The one person I saw interviewed, Caroline Armijo, certainly sounds like your stereotypical young white liberal.

by Gray on May 26, 2012 3:49 pm • link • report

In my neighborhood of Near Northeast/NoMa, the young white families are advocating for more parks. So are the young black families. And the young singles. And the older residents. And the dog owners... etc.

Particularly within the borders of NoMa, there is not a single parcel of public land for a farmers' market, playground, dog park, or recreation space like basketball courts or grass fields.

by Tony Goodman, ANC 6C04 on May 26, 2012 4:25 pm • link • report

The article highlights the emphasis on singles/couple oriented development, emphasizing housing and commercial choices. Given land costs, even former homes are likely to wind up as condos rather than family-friendly spaces. Playgrounds for Chinatown are an odd choice given what has been built there. The city does have playgrounds not far from Mount Vernon Square and they are little used when I've gone past during the day. I've noticed that city parents have no trouble having their kids play in Logan Circle and I suspect that increasing numbers of children can change the use of public spaces, even w/o the usual playground furniture.

The article neglects a number of things that are happening in inner parts of the city. Parents are anticipating that they will remain and are getting involved with their neighborhood schools, and not expecting some sort of "charter magic" (which the law of averages suggests is non-existent, overall). This is a long process, but more likely to bear fruit than a school chief who relies on showy gimmicks rather than concrete steps toward better instruction.

by Rich on May 26, 2012 4:35 pm • link • report

Who should one contact to suggest bus schedule tweaks? If they have funding for tweaks, I'd love to see something done about the 28a, 28t, and 3t. Each had 20 min headways but they all arrive and leave WFC metro within a couple minutes of each other. It's not unusual to see a 28t directly behind a 28a on 7. To add insult to injury, they often leave WFC just as the train is arriving in the late weekday evening when headways can be up to 40 mins.

by Falls Church on May 26, 2012 6:08 pm • link • report

Please do not use the term "McMansion"---it hurts the feelings of those houses. (Sorry, I was reading the kvetchy comment section of the original article.)

by watcher on May 26, 2012 6:46 pm • link • report

@Tom Coumaris and Gray

How did you figure out how to post from 2002? Seriously, those views are a little stale.

by Tim Krepp on May 26, 2012 10:07 pm • link • report

DC has grown by attracting 20-somethings, an explicit strategy under Mayor Williams, but when they age and start families they may find that the amenities they want—playgrounds and kid-friendly restaurants—just aren't there.
------------------------------------------------------------

Here is the reality. I think DC has pretty much given up on attracting families. I think DC accepts the fact that, once these 20-somethings get married, have kids, and start to worry about the schools, they will leave for either Fairfax or Montgomery Counties. The very wealthy will stay but those in the middle class will probably flee to the suburbs.

And I don't blame DC for focusing primarily on young people in their 20s and early 30s without kids. That is their core demographic because those are the folks who don't have to worry about the school system. And they are also likely the same demographic who will pay a premium to live within the city.

by Rain17 on May 27, 2012 2:47 am • link • report

@Tim Krepp and others: I guess I was too subtle in my sarcasm. I'll work to make it more overt in the future. :-)

by Gray on May 27, 2012 8:47 am • link • report

@Rain17 "And I don't blame DC for focusing primarily on young people in their 20s and early 30s without kids. That is their core demographic because those are the folks who don't have to worry about the school system. And they are also likely the same demographic who will pay a premium to live within the city."

I think you hit the nail on the head. I remember at the time that this policy was first being implemented, the very explicit goal (stated offline of course) was to bring in taxpayers who paid more in taxes than they used in city taxes. There was an acceptance of the fact that we had a large population of individuals who while costing the District nearly two thirds of it entire budget in education and social services expenses, brought in nearly no monies in taxes. And bringing in high income people (with high taxable income) with low service needs (i.e., no need for schools or welfare) was the way of making up for the imbalance (then) currently existing.

So yes, childless couples and individuals were the target group ... be they 20 or 30 something couples not yet ready for kids, or empty nester retirees looking for an urban environment, or gays looking for the gay ghetto, the one thing in common they had was no kids ... and hence no educational budget needs ... no park needs ... no affordable housing needs ... etc ... etc ...

by Lance on May 27, 2012 10:15 am • link • report

It's like San Francisco is intent on ruining what it has. First it took away parking from its residents and many many tourists, then it ran streetcars with those big ugly overhead poles through what had been charming street with big sky views, and now it's going to let the sun be banned from its parks and playgrounds simply for the profits of 'the 1%' who stand to make more than a few bucks off the extra height.

Where on earth are the adults in the room? They had a good thing going but are slowly (or is it quickly?) ruining it all. Oh well, I guess that's why their importance as a trend setting city is quickly likewise fading. Maybe Portland will follow its examples though. Oh wait ... San Francisco is following Portland's examples ... a fairly unimportant city. Like I said, where are the adults in the room in San Francisco ... ?

by Lance on May 27, 2012 12:32 pm • link • report

gotta luv this from the linked DCMud article on HPRB's review of the replacement building for the Third Church:

"The hearing lasted approximately three hours, though it wasn’t until the final twenty minutes that board member Rauzia Ally asked Wyatt was asked what seemed like the most important question: Why does it need a ninth floor?

His answer was that the church is set back into the building and takes up valuable office space, which would be reclaimed by adding a ninth floor. The board was not impressed."

Go Rauzia!

by Lance on May 27, 2012 12:35 pm • link • report

I agree with the need for parks in NOMA, but isn't the Penn Quarter right near, you know, the National Mall? That's a huge green area.

And you can absolutely live with an infant/toddler in a one-bedroom. Maybe it is not ideal, but all choices are going to involve some trade-offs.

by H Street Landlord on May 27, 2012 12:48 pm • link • report

The 9th floor thing is a red herring. I'm in academia and have seen this dynamic play out all the time with papers and theses. Reviewers feel like unless they "do" something and add some suggestions, they're useless. So inevitably, there will always be revisions which, no matter how pointless, get suggested. So too with the 9th floor. If the HPRB went along with the building as-is, they would have felt worthless... but getting rid of a 9th floor not visible from the street? That makes them feel like their existence is justified.

The church should have had a 10th floor or maybe a big phallic beam sticking out into the street, so the HPRB could have nixed something and made themselves feel like they were "doing" something.

by Tyro on May 27, 2012 1:24 pm • link • report

@Lance:

"The hearing lasted approximately three hours, though it wasn’t until the final twenty minutes that board member Rauzia Ally asked Wyatt was asked what seemed like the most important question: Why does it need a ninth floor?

His answer was that the church is set back into the building and takes up valuable office space, which would be reclaimed by adding a ninth floor. The board was not impressed."

Go Rauzia!

So, this is in keeping with the HPRB's mission because . . . historically, buildings were never constructed without an explicit justification for every floor?

by Gray on May 27, 2012 2:34 pm • link • report

@Lance re: San Francisco
Was that a sarcastic remark? I mean, whenever one asks where the adults are in the room, I have to ask.

by OctaviusIII on May 27, 2012 3:10 pm • link • report

@OctaviusIII: If only there were adults in the room, they could have informed all of the children how foolish it is to build densely and provide good transit! Also: the necessity of free parking.

But clearly, the adults must have been outside. Or perhaps in other rooms.

by Gray on May 27, 2012 3:28 pm • link • report

Lance--You hit the nail on the head. DC isn't attracting middle-class families because I think they have quietly given up on ever improving the public school system. I do know a lot of parents in Ward 3 will send their kids to elementary schools like Horace Mann, Murch, Stoddert, Eaton, Key, Hearst, and Lafayette. But, if they don't go to private school for middle and high school, they usually go to the suburbs because the tuition at most of the elite private schools in DC is out of their reach unless they are loaded.

by Rain17 on May 27, 2012 4:08 pm • link • report

It's like San Francisco is intent on ruining what it has. First it took away parking from its residents and many many tourists, then it ran streetcars with those big ugly overhead poles through what had been charming street

First: The existence of streetcars in SF predates the phenomenon of SF as an important city. It had streetcars for many decades, brought them back later on, and now is wealthier than ever.

Next, I don't know if you've ever been to SF, but it is a very geographically constrained city, hemmed in on 3 sides by water and on the fourth by the San Bruno Mountain and Lake Merced. There is simply a limited number of space for cars to exist, and unless you are interested in banning new people from moving or visiting there and never growing, domination by cars is simply not economically scalable.

And SF is a wealthier and more important city than DC, so they're doing something right.

by Tyro on May 27, 2012 4:42 pm • link • report

@Tyro
On the other hand, the City (as the locals call it) only plans on adding about 500 housing units over the next couple of years, while DC plans on adding 11,000, so they are in a sense banning new people.

by OctaviusIII on May 27, 2012 4:46 pm • link • report

Well, it's good to see some of the concerns I have been raising for years finally in print. It's good to see in print the possibility (the possibility, guys, ok?) that people don't want to raise families in small apartments or condos. We need to talk about this! You can't just say there already are families in condos and wham expect the topic of infrastructure for families to be solved.

Interesting quotes:

The city now has the highest percentage of one-person households in the country, 48 percent, far higher than the national rate of 28 percent and even greater than Manhattan.

Harriet Tregoning brought this up last year on a radio program.

Diversify the housing stock.

Right now it isn’t. Armijo said the playground idea seems to be coming together, but she and her husband have decided to move back to North Carolina in a few weeks, after he received a job offer there.

The District’s planning director, Harriet Tregoning, wants to keep families in Washington

by Jazzy on May 27, 2012 5:10 pm • link • report

FWIW other than the tourist's cable cars, SF Muni's ubiquitous "streetcars" are actually electric buses on rubber tires run by overhead power.

And SF is a small peninsula, more so than even Hong Kong or Vancouver, and almost like the island of Manhattan. They have very limited space. Even there though, skyscrapers are usually expensive vanity items for businesses.

by Tom Coumaris on May 27, 2012 5:16 pm • link • report

@Tom Coumaris
Not quite accurate re: the streetcars. They have five types of surface-running transport: buses, electric trolleys like you described, the light rail (also called MuniMetro), cable cars, and the F-Line historic light rail. BART is underground and never mixes with traffic like MuniMetro, but the trolleybus system runs with traffic and looks like regular buses, other than the giant electrical connections running to the wires above.

by OctaviusIII on May 27, 2012 5:19 pm • link • report

Tyro said The church should have had a 10th floor or maybe a big phallic beam sticking out into the street, so the HPRB could have nixed something and made themselves feel like they were "doing" something.

So in your view, in order to not be "useless" they should just rubber-stamp any special exception and rezoning request that comes their way.

by Bob See on May 27, 2012 5:21 pm • link • report

So in your view, in order to not be "useless" they should just rubber-stamp any special exception and rezoning request that comes their way.

I think it was more on them to come up with a justification for why they need to ban a non-visible 9th floor, rather than the designer to justify a 9th floor. But as I said, the HPRB sounds like they needed to feel like they were "doing" something to earn their keep, so the 9th floor had to go.

You have to realize that these are people who are bored, don't really "do" anything, per se, but need to feel like they're doing something "useful." That's why designers need to add some entraneous beams or intrusive ornamentation, ask for the advice of HPRB members who will suggest they be removed, and then we can all heap praise on them for being such "good citizens." Otherwise they end up doing crazy stuff like picking fights over the 9th floor.

by Tyro on May 27, 2012 5:44 pm • link • report

@Tyro, If the HPRB went along with the building as-is, they would have felt worthless... but getting rid of a 9th floor not visible from the street? That makes them feel like their existence is justified.

Actually, it would have been VERY visible. Maybe not when going south on 16th Street because of the 30 foot setback on 16th Street, but definitely visible when going north on 16th or approaching from anywhere on Eye Street because that Eye street side setback being proposed was only 15 feet. I.e., just a notch in ... and not enough to really tell the building was set back when viewed from far below.

The church should have had a 10th floor or maybe a big phallic beam sticking out into the street, so the HPRB could have nixed something and made themselves feel like they were "doing" something.

Actually they WERE proposing a 10th floor. The penthouse above the 9th floor wasn't your typical mechanicals penthouse that is allowed by right in DC (i.e., even with a 90 ft limit you can still put buildings on the roof to house your HVAC, etc.) But instead it was a penthouse with (if you looked at the plans) was clearly office space. It was nearly as large as the 9th floor!

Now, I'm not saying your theory was wrong. That's exactly what they did ... i.e., propose something they knew would never fly so that they could get something else that shouldn't also fly ... but which the review bodies would think 'aw shucks, I did my job ... ' And THAT was the even larger building proposed a couple months ago with even larger floors on top. Some bodies fell for that old trick .. ergo the ANC thinking the developer had been accomodating ... And GGW thinking the same as evidenced by a posting done a couple weeks ago.

Thank God HPO and HPRB take their job seriously and don't let themselves be swayed by 'the popular thing' since developers wishing to game the system are experts at fooling the public ... and apparently, sometimes their representatives too.

by Lance on May 27, 2012 5:59 pm • link • report

@Gray "So, this is in keeping with the HPRB's mission because . . . historically, buildings were never constructed without an explicit justification for every floor?

This is excellent because, if you've followed this story long enough, you'd know that all along this whole 'razing the church and putting in a combined church/office building complex in its place' was spun as being for the church's bests interests. The church wanted a building that required less upkeep, the church wanted a building that was more welcoming, the church this, and the church that. The office building/church complex was portrayed as the means to a noble end. But with this one question, the truth got revealed in all its ugliness. The church space was just "taking up valuable office space". This razing of an architecturally noted, irreplaceable, and beautiful landmarked church was all for the benefit of 'valuable office space' ...

by Lance on May 27, 2012 6:09 pm • link • report

@Tryo, "I>Next, I don't know if you've ever been to SF,"

I lived there a few decades ago. And the last time I was back (a couple years ago) I was very disappointed to see not progress taking place there, but backwards marches into time. Putting the ugly catenaries back up along Market and through the area around Fisherman's Wharf is definitely not an improvement. Nor are limitations on parking effected through various means. I was very disappointed for example, that I could just see most of my old haunts from a windshield perspective as I circle and circled (wasting gas and polluting the air) for the ever more limited parking spaces. And these same 'text book' theorists, now want to ruin this city too ....

by Lance on May 27, 2012 6:15 pm • link • report

@Gray Apologies! I'm quite embarrassed to miss your sarcasm.

@Lance, far be it for me to wade into the performance art that is your urban viewpoint, but a quick question. You made a point that purpose of bringing young folks in as taxpayers was "the very explicit goal (stated offline of course)".

How can it be "very explicit" if it was "stated offline"?

by Tim Krepp on May 27, 2012 6:38 pm • link • report

OvtaviusIII- I realize there's other forms of transit in SF but Muni's electric buses with overhead wires and rubber tires is the ubiquitous one.

Lance- It is odd that the church's original plea for demolition was that they needed a church that was easier to afford upkeep and utilities on and now the church part is seen as an inconvenient necessity to be offset by even more office space.

by Tom Coumaris on May 27, 2012 7:00 pm • link • report

@Tom, And even order that despite blaming their maintenance issues with the current church on unconventional building elements, they're now proposing a two story high 'chrystalline' structure to serve as their large meeting hall. (That's the large thing on the northernmost part of the building which looks like glass mountains .. ).

by Lance on May 27, 2012 7:38 pm • link • report

So Lance is comparing cleaning glass to outdated physical plant that cannot be replaced or repaired? Concrete that is deteriorating?

If Lance and the other hard-core preservationists like the cement bunker so much, perhaps they can pass the hat handle the costs for the church in infinitum.

Why are other buildings on 16th Street able to pierce the now-sanctimonious 90 foot mark but this proposal isn't? The inconsistent application of arbitrary rules are what undermine the historic preservation process.

by William on May 27, 2012 9:26 pm • link • report

@William "Why are other buildings on 16th Street able to pierce the now-sanctimonious 90 foot mark but this proposal isn't?

What other buildings? Are you talking about buildings along 16th Street within the 16th Street Historic District (Lafayette Park to U street) or elsewhere on 16th?

ALL materials deteriorate if not properly maintained. Hence why there's a law against 'demolition by neglect' which is an underhanded way for a property owner in a historic district to get permission to tear down their historic building. And if you really think all that will be required is 'cleaning glass', I've got some swamp land in Florida to sell you.

by Lance on May 27, 2012 9:57 pm • link • report

@Lance, there are plenty of other buildings in the zone you identify which have heights greater than the sacrosanct 90 feet that HPO has proscribed for this building. Take a look and do your own research.

On the other, yes demolition by neglect is one thing, but when a building so celebrated has serious design flaws which make its ongoing maintenance burdensome, the property owner ought to be able to take action to have a functional structure. In this case, the hard core preservationists are preventing the property owner from such action. That is essentially a legal "taking."

Why are the preservationists so keen on tempting this case in court? Do they really think, in the United States, that preservation will supersede religious freedoms, or basic property rights?

by William on May 27, 2012 11:16 pm • link • report

When churches start paying taxes and stop double parking I'll care what they think a little more.

by Tom Coumaris on May 27, 2012 11:39 pm • link • report

@William ... "Do they really think, in the United States, that preservation will supersede religious freedoms, or basic property rights?"

That is such a red herring.

Basic property rights? Do you really think you have an inherent right to build a factory (smoke stack and all) in your residentially zoned neighborhood?

Religious freedoms? So, getting a windfall in $$$$$ from a developer who wants to build lots of "valuable office space" where your worship space now stands is 'religious freedom'? Since when?

by Lance on May 28, 2012 10:09 am • link • report

Tryo said: I think it was more on them to come up with a justification for why they need to ban a non-visible 9th floor

It's in the report. Rather than skimming a single paragraph posted on a blog and letting your imagination run wild, you could bother to read it and then refute specifics. If you don't agree with their methodology, fine, but don't keep spouting that they didn't do anything.

by Bob See on May 28, 2012 11:01 am • link • report

Lance says: Actually, it would have been VERY visible

Yes.

Lance says: ...propose something they knew would never fly so that they could get something else that shouldn't also fly

Happens all the time.

Lance says: ...developers wishing to game the system are experts at fooling the public ... and apparently, sometimes their representatives too.

They misrepresent and outright lie with decpetive drawings, wrong dimensions, fudged calculations, etc.

by Bob See on May 28, 2012 11:12 am • link • report

don't keep spouting that they didn't do anything.

Why not? These are not people who have what is traditionally regarded as a "real job." Rather they are "concerned citizens" and "local activists" appointed by the DC government who lacking any real worthwhile justification for their existence, need to invent reasons for why their roles are necessary and important.

The church was in no conceivable way "historic," nor is a 9th floor some kind of affront to the historicity of the district. But if we admitted that, we might start believing that HPRB's role should be reduced, rather than expanded, and many of the members would start to feel less useful and less important. Their only role here over the 9th floor was to engage in some juvenile chest-thumping. And part of it, let's not forget, is jealoousy-- the developers will be making additional money by renting out the 9th floor, and for a bunch of non-working members of the HPRB, this seems like an affront to the very nature of society, and thus the developer had to be "put in his place." There exists in DC a certain hostility to the process of making a living, and as such, developers here are considered the enemy, by building something and making money off of it. Do not forget the hostility to the tenants of the building, which may include businesses (perhaps profit-making ones) which people on the HPRB consider an unacceptable instrusion and a vulgar violation of L'Enfant's vision.

Quite frankly, I'm getting the impression that the bruhahaha that went on in the HPRB has just been a self-esteem exercise for people who lack anything better to do.

by Tyro on May 28, 2012 11:49 am • link • report

@Lance, red-herring indeed. No one is suggesting building an industrial complex at the site of the Church.

As I mentioned, there are other proposals that HPO has supported that are similar to what the Church proposed.

Yes,the Church owns the property and has found that it can no longer use its building for its intended purpose. What the HPO, HPRB and preservation community has done is a legal taking. They will not be maintaining the building. They will not be putting it to any productive use, but yet, they have forced the church into this box. The church owns the property and has teamed with a developer who, yes, wants to develop the property while also providing a new space for the church.

The 9th floor is deemed, by all but the most ardent preservationists, to be fairly innocuous, if at all visible. While not a ground breaking design, it seems to solve all of the problems at that parcel, except for the preservationists.

by William on May 28, 2012 12:14 pm • link • report

Tryo, thanks for those excerpts from your upcoming sordid novel.

William says: They will not be maintaining the building. They will not be putting it to any productive use...

Oddly enough, neither will the ICC, the NFPA, the NEC, the DCOP, DCOZ, DCRA, DDOE, DCFD, DDOT, etc.

by Bob See on May 28, 2012 12:37 pm • link • report

Here is the report. Decide for yourselves, why not.

by Neil Flanagan on May 28, 2012 1:16 pm • link • report

Thank you for posting the link to the article on attracting families to DC. The past few years have seen a proliferation of young children in the denser areas of the city. But, we need to do a bit more to accomodate those families so that they don't leave prematurely. This isn't just about finding different excuses on the way out; this is about making DC a more family-friendly place. It is ripe to be so, and doing so benefits residents of all races and all income-levels.

Condo-living and family-living do not have to be mutually exclusive. There are many families that are now living in centrally-located condos and townhomes, and they want to stay. Many parents don't want to spend their children's whole childhood commuting. They would rather put that time towards improving the schools, public or charter, which benefits all of the children. We should not underestimate the importance of parental participation in the improvement of so many of our schools in recent years (ex. Brent, Maury, Ross, Bancroft, Stokes, LAMB, Mundo Verde, Yu Ying, Inspired Teaching, Capital City, Washington Latin, etc.). This helps all the children at these schools, and it is something that we should all be promoting by encouraging parents that the city is a viable option and by providing a healthy childhood infrastructure.

And, while Caroline leaving is a big loss to this community, it has absolutely nothing to do with the general issue of families choosing to live in the city. She wanted to stay, and plans to continue to be involved in this community, but - like many people in DC (and elsewhere), single, married, with or without children - she has to move to a different city to accomodate a job opportunity. We will miss her, but we understand that this area is always going to be a bit transient and life happens.

by Danielle on May 29, 2012 9:00 am • link • report

@Tyro "Why not? These are not people who have what is traditionally regarded as a "real job." Rather they are "concerned citizens" and "local activists" appointed by the DC government who lacking any real worthwhile justification for their existence, need to invent reasons for why their roles are necessary and important."

Your show a profound ignorance of both the process and the people. The folks who do the research and write the report on a case are District of Columbia employees (Historic Preservation Office withing the Office of Planning)who are experts in their fields. The Historic Preservation Review Board is indeed an appointed board, but they are appointed in accordance with federal regulations as to qualifications and represent a breadth of knowledge with regards to historic preservation as well as community interests. For example, one of the knowledge areas is a requirement that there be a board member who is an Architectural Historian ... i.e., has a degree in or worked a lot in architectural history. And I happen to know one of the current 'community representatives' recently appointed and not only does she have a background in this having been the president of one of the city's neighborhood historic association for the last 3 years, she actually works a day job, believe it or not! She is an architect who owns and manages her own architectural firm. So much for her (or the members with specialized qualifications) not having 'a real job' of being not qualified to decide as you seemed to imply. Of course, you didn't even know that it's paid DC Staff who actually do the research and write the report. So what do you know?

by Lance on May 29, 2012 9:58 am • link • report

but when they age and start families they may find that the amenities they want—playgrounds and kid-friendly restaurants—just aren't there.

I could never quite understand this line of argument. It's as though there's a finite set of Americans in America, and humans in the world, and that no more are being made. I think the city is has already become pretty welcoming to younger families (and will only grow more so). But even if it didn't, the argument that it's insufficient to just replenish the 20-somethings who age out needs to be made--it's not self-evident.

In any case, if you want to retain parents as their children get older, you need to give them school options. And the only way to create school options for middle-class families is to somehow "carve out" opportunities for middle-class student cohorts to grow. And those are going to come across as unfair to non- middle-class parents.

After all, if you offer a gifted and talented track in DCPS, some opportunistic politician is going to run on the resentment that the system is resulting in some children being "left behind."

by oboe on May 29, 2012 11:56 am • link • report

There are lots of parks and restaurants for young 20 and 30 somethings in DC, although they are not evenly spaced. The big problem is SCHOOLS. Fix that problem, and you will be doing good for the current residents and find it easier to attract new residents

by SJE on May 29, 2012 12:00 pm • link • report

The big problem is SCHOOLS. Fix that problem, and you will be doing good for the current residents and find it easier to attract new residents

And the easiest way to fix the schools is to retain middle class school students. Chicken and egg.

by Alex B. on May 29, 2012 12:04 pm • link • report

Yes, you need to fix the schools, but to do that you need to get educated people to send their children to the schools, which means you need to get the people to stay until the children are school-age. Right now many are tempted to leave due to the lack of playgrounds. There are absolutely zero playgrouds in the downtown area right now. And, the city as a whole has way fewer playgrounds than it should. It is especially important to have playgrounds and not just park spaces when children are in the toddler years as they need a place to play that is fenced in and free of unsafe debris. Even where we have plenty of park space, we are currently lacking playgrounds. Given the current projectory, I predict that if we create the playgrounds and pay just a slight bit of attention to the issue, families will stay, and the school situation will continue to improve. They have done this very well in NYC. This does not mean that we shouldn't continue to work hard on the school issues, those too need to be improved from the administration down, and I agree that having a G&T program is essential, without it, the charter schools will continue to sweep all the gifted and motivated students away from DCPS.

by Danielle on May 29, 2012 1:31 pm • link • report