Duany: "Get off my lawn, you crazy kids!"

Duany has done some great things for the planning profession, but his remarks only serve to indicate that he doesn't really know anything about urbanism. New Urbanism, perhaps, but not the traditional kind.

He wants to live somewhere quiet (the suburbs) but still be able to walk to shops. There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, there's plenty right about that.

But being urban means far more than living in a place with street-level retail, a grid of streets, and nice front porches. It means diversity and access and social cohesion.

You can't be for cities, and then complain that they're crowded and popular. So what, tweenagers drive in from the burbs. So do 65 year olds. Luring people in from miles away isn't killing cities, it's breathing life into them.

Full parking lots does not mean death for business, it means the cup runneth over. And besides, if you live in one of these New Urbanist communities, you don't need to complain about parking - you can just walk to the "lifestyle center".

If you don't want tweenagers to come to your New Urbanist communities, Mr. Duany? Then make them boring. You think that the tweenagers would act differently if they lived in the community itself? They're bad just because they drive there? Please.

Oh, and by the way, you might have heard of something called the Credit Crisis? It makes it hard for people to buy anything now. Especially those Millenials who are graduating into the worst job market we've seen since 1938.

So just go back into your ivory tower (with street retail, of course) and get double-paned windows. That should keep the techno out.

by Matt Johnson on May 20, 2010 3:42 pm  

Dan, well said. I think all of us — love or hate Duany — were scratching our heads at that interview from him. If he feels misquoted somehow, I'd love to see him come on here or elsewhere and clarify exactly what he meant. I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I think he meant it pretty much as he said it. And as BeyondDC hilariously put it, he sounds like the old curmudgeon yelling 'get off my lawn! You dang kids!"

by Steve on May 20, 2010 3:43 pm  

You had me, you had me...

A lot of things helped Washington emerge from decades of urban decay, but I would argue Kentlands is one of them.

...then you lost me.

Did you mean "washington metro"?

Anyway, if you want to move into the city, why not move to Rosedale, or east of the river? That's what all the folks with no money did 20 years ago when they wanted to move into the city.

by oboe on May 20, 2010 3:45 pm  

Man, he said some dumb comment about kids ruining his restaurant experience, but I'm not sure that means he dosen't understand cities. After architecture school, when I returned to the area, I wanted to be where the action was too. So I shared a house with others, because back in the early ninties, I couldn't afford what I wanted either. When I got sick of chore wheels and progressive pot luck dinners, I moved into the ghetto, because I still couldn't afford what I wanted. What I did want was more urbanism to enjoy, and over the last 20 years, that's what I got, thanks in no small part to Mr. Duany Wilson. Used to be Georgetown was all we had in the 80's, then Adam's Morgan came around, then downtown started comming back to life etc, etc, etc. So I hear it's expensive, but there are way's around that if you're not Donald Trump. In the mean time I'm just glad we in the USA have rediscovered urban living, but please keep the techno racket down.
See you at the centro historico!

by Thayer-D on May 20, 2010 3:57 pm  

Well said, Dan. At the risk of being boring, I'd like to cut and paste my comment from yesterday's links.

Mr. Duany cleary doesn't know what's going on outside of his home in Miami. Perhaps he should walk around Washington D.C. ... or Baltimore, or Philadelphia, or New York (both City and boroughs), or perhaps Chicago, or Seattle, or Portland, or San Francisco, or...

While I'm thankful for Mr. Duany's work, he needs to look out and realize that his conjecture is innacurate. He also might need to ask why some things are the way they are. I know if I'd buy one of those 19th century townhouses on Logan Circle if I could afford it. But, that probably won't happen in my lifetime. For now, maybe I could aspire to a small condo in Silver Spring or Columbia Heights.

He needs to get that urban real estate is so expensive because so many people desire it and there is too little of it.

by Cavan on May 20, 2010 4:18 pm  

Group Homes in DC are the way to go my man. Not sure what your particular financial situation is like, but you can find a room for 500/mo (even in neighborhoods like Columbia Heights or Shaw) if youre willing to live with 6-10 other people. Nothing wrong with it. I did it for a couple of years and miss it. Some of the most creative ideas I've had come from living in such close quarters with other people who were far smarter than I.

by Shawres on May 20, 2010 4:28 pm  

Mr. Duany did not state his case well. But on one level I strongly agree with him. Our generation grew up more suburbanized than any prior generation. Whether we like to admit it or not, we don't know how to live in a city properly. We drive when we could walk or use transit. We are accustomed to taking up a lot more space than we need. Many of us are not used to being in close quarters with people of varied socio-economic backgrounds. We're used to cheap throw-away infrastructure like strip malls with a "design life" of 30 years, and automobiles that will probably get trashed within a decade of purchasing them.

I don't know what exactly this causes the negative repercussions to be, but I know we generally treat cities with a sense of novelty often. And- by no fault of our own- we generally can't afford to buy in the city. Buying something makes us respect it a lot more.

Duany certainly sounds like a crotchety old man a bit here, as he is blaming our generation for the results of us being dragged out of cities (and rural areas) and attempting to reinvent millenniums of cultural evolution by suburbanizing everything. So no, it's not our fault. But yes, we do have trouble fitting back into the city. The good news is that we ARE moving back, reenergizing the cities with new population, tax base, and potential.

by Dave Murphy on May 20, 2010 4:36 pm  

Dude, suck it up and move to the city. I did 5 years ago, making under $1000 a month and spending $550 for 1 bedroom in a 2 bedroom basement apartment in Columbia Heights. It is sooooo worth it.

by Alex on May 20, 2010 4:43 pm  

Mr. Duany's comments are something a crotchety old man would say. If Duany were 30 or 45 years of age, not the 60 he is, it's doubtful these ridiculous statements would have been uttered.

by Metro User on May 20, 2010 4:51 pm  

I'm the same age, have the same feelings, and I really applaud you for writing this article.

A real city is dynamic, diverse, and filled with all sorts of things that may on the surface be in conflict. If I ever took anything from reading books by Jane Jacobs(by the way, check out her other works beyond Death and Life) or other great urban observers it is that successful cities are like big amoebas, sucking up everything and finding a way to make it all work. And it does all work, because enough people in a small place will always invent new ways of getting along with each other.

by TXSteve on May 20, 2010 4:55 pm  

@Shawres, we do try and call it a group "house" rather then a group "home". Connotation is a little different.

Yeah, shared apartments/houses even in "dangerous" areas was the only way I could live in a variety of cities including Chicago and DC. My list of former neighborhoods now makes it sound like I was independently wealthy or something b/c they've changed so much (in Chi: Old town, Wicker Park, Logan Sqr. & in DC Shaw and U St) In all of those places at the time I lived there people (who didn't live there) would often ask me "isn't it dangerous? Aren't you afraid?" No and No! If you love the city go live in it!

I really liked the "forgotten" areas because there was so much freedom. I don't know how to explain the freedom.

The other thing is learning to live with people is a vital skill if you ever want a long-term relationship. Living in a group house is a great teacher.

by Bianchi on May 20, 2010 4:56 pm  

I'm not chiming in on the Duany comments. I don't endorse those. But the young people who feel they've been priced out of the city need to suck it up, live with roommates for a few years, and save up for their own place. You've also got the option of renting in Wards 5,7,8. I don't understand why you all feel government needs to engineer it society so that you can go straight from your campus dorm room to your own subsidized 1BR in Dupont Circle after graduation.

by Jason on May 20, 2010 4:59 pm  

Fair, bianchi. We called em 'homes' in Philly.

by Shawres on May 20, 2010 5:00 pm  

@Dave Murphy

I'm with you on that. And while I agree with what this writer says, I bet when he visits "downtown" DC he's really coming into a close in neighborhood. It bothers me soooo much when the suburban 20 somethings call Adams Morgan or U Street "downtown".

by Alex on May 20, 2010 5:06 pm  

@Jason,

There are two huge issues here:

First, I don't see anyone saying the government should engineer a solution - if anything, people are arguing to get the government out of the way and let the market provide the housing in walkable, urban places that the the for-sale prices indicate is out there.

Chris Leinberger talks consistently about the pent-up demand for walkable, urban places driving the costs through the roof. In many respects, the market can't meet that demand because of the restrictions placed on development.

Second, Duany explicitly chastises Millennials for renting rather than buying, in those cities they can't afford.

by Alex B. on May 20, 2010 5:17 pm  

@ Alex B, I didn't read Duaney's comments-what could be wrong with renting? Did he say? He sounds like a classist as well as an agist.

by Bianchi on May 20, 2010 5:23 pm  

I just want to say to Dan Reed thank you for writing this post. I am impressed with how open it is, I was moved by it and I'm sympathetic. I meant my comment to be encouragement to go live in the city any way you can rather than as a criticism for not doing so.

by Bianchi on May 20, 2010 5:26 pm  

People who are reading this as a gripe about the cost of DC are missing the point. Duany doesn't talk about them specifically, but he would include group houses as contributing to an undesirable monoculture.

Duany argues that us kids are detrimental (among other reasons) because we rent instead of owning property the way grownups do. It's not certain that owning is necessarily better in every case - and he doesn't support that presumption. Harlem thrived pretty well with a majority rental population. Dan's point seems to be that he would own if he could, he'd rent if he could, but it costs too much.

by Neil Flanagan on May 20, 2010 5:32 pm  

Living in group homes/houses as single young adults is a very different way of life compared to what a baby boomer might have expected to do coming out of college. And though I don't fall into this demographic thanks to the Montgomery GI Bill, a lot of college grads face six figure student loans, rendering a $500/mo rent unattainable at entry-level salary. I don't know if this is the case with Dan, but I can say that I know very few college grads that didn't immediately move back in with their parents after college because of this.

by Dave Murphy on May 20, 2010 7:37 pm  

Younger people with less money can either have many roommates OR live in a not-so-desirable part of town.

Putting a non-black 22-year-old from the suburbs in an all-black DC neighborhood will expose that person to a very real urban experience (with both good and bad aspects). They will learn a lot.

But 99% of these people will not even consider that option -- they want the apartment in a renovated townhouse in Logan so they can walk to the bars & shops. They don't want to deal with the 'undesirable' part of urban life.

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Save wisely & you'll get the fab condo in 20 years like the rest of us did.

by mch on May 20, 2010 8:46 pm  

well said.

by Tim H on May 20, 2010 9:24 pm  

I should probably clarify:

1) I am black. Or, specifically, half-black. My family is from the Caribbean.

2) I have family all over D.C., but mainly in Columbia Heights, Petworth, and Brookland. They have been here for over thirty years. I spent a lot of time growing up in these places, and I've seen them change pretty fast. I saw a white family pushing a stroller on at New Hampshire and Hamilton NW last week, and I was pretty shocked. I don't think that's been normal in my lifetime.

3) Griping about how "suburban kids don't know the city" is the same kind of stuff that Duany complains about, and what I wrote about. I know that Downtown is not Adams-Morgan, thanks.

4) I know I'm not entitled to a rowhouse in Logan Circle. But, as Dave suggested, I do have some student loans to pay. So I live at home. It's all I can afford. But I love D.C., and I would like to contribute to it. When I can afford to, I'll live there one day.

In the meantime, I'm moving to Philly for school. It's cheaper, but I'll get all the amenities I'd expect from living in a city, like being able to walk to the store. I don't think that's too much to ask.

by dan reed! on May 20, 2010 9:29 pm  

Neil, the notion that "grownups" own property as a matter of course is such an enormous part of what caused the economic crisis this country (and much of the developed world) is still reeling from that I'm aghast Duany said it.

Which isn't to say I'm surprised. Duany's said and done a number of tone-deaf things, including his continued desire to redevelop the Tacheles (a major art and music incubator in Berlin, particularly during reunification, and a UNESCO candidate for that reason) as yet another mid-city department store. And then there's completely disregarding the aesthetic questions of using Seaside as Andrew Weir's set design in The Truman Show. But while these things seem almost trite compared to the muted autocratic longings and dismissal of the young generations as monomanaiacal hipsters - I'm almost surprised he didn't imagine us saying "I HERD U LIEK SMART GROWTH", tho I'd doubt he'd get the reference - it does provide context for these ideations.

Then again, a lot of architects say appalling things. I keep coming back to Gehry's absolute and continued dismissal of context and sustainability issues as "petty" or some kind of "fad". But the difference is that Gehry never really pretended to care, much less staked an entire career on being one of the "good guys".

by J.D. Hammond on May 21, 2010 1:12 am  

"Making it prohibitively expensive by demanding it look or feel a certain way." Ah, to be 22 and still have so much to learn. What makes Tenleytown expensive compared to the Anacostia Historic District?

by crin on May 21, 2010 7:04 am  

I agree that there's a 'get off my lawn' vibe to Duany's remarks-- but I think there's a significant intellectual problem as well.

Duany has his reputation invested in a fairly specific idea of what an urban area should be like-- heterogeneous, localized, and 'interactional'. But when reality didn't come up to his expectations, he blames 'those kids' and their suburban monoculture. Well, maybe the problem is that Duany underestimated the difficulty and the cost of creating a genuinely urban environment. What's revealing here is that he's irritated and crotchety about what the real world is teaching him, rather than critical and analytical.

by MattF on May 21, 2010 7:44 am  

Dan,

I appreciated your comments, and good luck in Philly. I think the fact that you're moving to a less-expensive city highlights an important aspect of affordability in urban areas.

NYC and DC are really friggin expensive, cause that's where the jobs are. I'm not from DC and I while I like living here I would rent out my house and leave town immediately if I lost my job or had to take a pay cut. I just don't understand people that "love" the city so much that they will spend half their salary on a basement apartment just to be there. That just defies common sense. And while living in a group house is awesome after college it gets pretty old after a few years.

Better yet, live with your parents, or move to a less expensive city like Philly where you can at least enjoy yourself with the money you have. Sock away your money and look for a good job here...then look at moving to an urban neighborhood and find out what you can afford. Or maybe you'll decide you like Philly better because it's at least somewhat affordable and you can go out for a few beers without breaking the bank. Anyway, sounds to me like you have the right idea.

by C on May 21, 2010 8:48 am  

The Kentlands used to have their CC&Rs posted on the Web. (I can't find them now.) Absolutely everything was regulated, from what color you could paint your shutters to where you could hang a clothes line to what kind of birdbath, and even what cultivar of what plant, you could put in your front yard.

There's a lot of good about the Kentlands, but one thing they're not is urban (historic preservation districts notwithstanding). If Duany thinks they are urban, well, no wonder he wants those darn kids to get off his lawn.

by Miriam on May 21, 2010 9:09 am  

I understand how/why group houses are needed, but in a majority of cases, they and Sec 8 neighbors are often the least connected to a block. Some times you end up with a good group who actually maintains the property (mow the yard, clear sidewalks, etc) but in my experience 9/10 of the time they really don't care about their immediate neighbors. Yes, it's a great way to experience the city cheaply, but part of that is to know the block you live on, not just the cool hip place that's 7-8 blocks away.

by M on May 21, 2010 9:17 am  

@ dan reed!: I am black.

It is rather sad that you need to clarify this because it play a role in people's perception.

There you have it folks, silent discrimination, still an everyday feature, even on a progressive forum as this.

by Jasper on May 21, 2010 9:45 am  

Duany made his point poorly, but there IS a valid point to be made.

Yes, the young people bringing in their techno and cheap food is an "old man" reaction.

However, he's right about the people from the 'burbs coming into the city to live it up essentially ruining the fabric of the city experience. A great majority of them still drive into the city (making a crosstown cab ride a nightmare most weekends.) And I also find it odd that they're looking for urban variants on the suburban experience. Perhaps because I'm a Georgetowner, I see more of this...but why in the hell would anyone in the 'burbs decide to go to the Banana Republic in Georgetown to shop...when they have one up the street?

Sadly, people in the city also have the "cake and eat it too" mentality. How many urbanites drive when they could walk or Metro?

Finally, as for the lack of affordability for young folks, I think that's more of a lifestyle choice than anything else. If you want to live urban, you will. You might pay more for it. You might get less space for it. But that's the price for urban life.

When I was 18, I lived in a studio apartment on South Beach, roller skated to my waiting tables job, and took transit to college (which then became a car, as Florida's transit has "holes" to say the least.) It sucked. I made about $1200 a month. My bills were about $1100 a month (one I got the car plus insurance.) That $100 a month went into more college classes every semester, to keep my loans down.

The point is that I could have chosen to live in a cheaper, more suburban place. I didn't want to. So I did what I had to do to lead the life I wanted to lead.

As a city resident, I welcome the young people. As a former young person helping define an urban area coming back, we need them.

by AaroniusLives on May 21, 2010 11:55 am  

While I agree there is some good to the concept of these sorts of planned developments, they are county/county planner created enclaves and are not user friendly to others outside the community but who are paying taxes in the county. The streets are always to narrow, there is scant places to park a car and god forbid a fire truck or ambulance needs to get through. While they do create walkable town centers they are only for the well healed who can afford to buy into the concept. To me they are more akin to the back lot at Disney or Unversal Studios since they give the appearance of a white pickett fence community but do not allow for vast range of folks that are required to make a community thrive. Where are the gas staions with mechanics, the appliance stores or repairman, hardware store etc. If they had them, the proprietors and their sales force cannot afford to live there. The false hope of county planners is that these cookie cutter, ultra dense communities will replace suburbia when in reality they could not survive without it. The county and planners love these sorts of developments because they come with numerous requirements on the developer regarding schools, libraries, community centers, PUDs, small urban parks and roads that they don't have to provide a cent for but the county will reap the taxes at the end of the day. Unfortunately Montgomery County has moved past the Kentlands model in an attempt to gain an even larger tax base and will try to extend this mixed use development at White Flint to high rise development called Smart Growth. The thought being that if you jam in as much density at a metro station then you can maximize office, condo and retail and minimize the need for autos. Don't know where they'll find the millionaire to live in these condos that won't want to bring their Mercedes, Porches or BMWs. Last I heard they may have missed the impact on schools, libraries, and hospitals. Hopefully the millionaires they find are childless and in relatively good health.

by bill a bob on May 21, 2010 12:12 pm  

@ AaroniusLives: How many urbanites drive when they could walk or Metro?

Wrong question. Alternatives:
How many urbanites can use metro at all?
How many urbanites can use metro but choose to drive their car because metro takes twice as long?
How many of the subruban buses do not ride in the weekend or at night?

To illustrate:
I live 7 miles from the nearest metro station. However, there is only rush-hour transit service. That means "pick-up" from 5h30 to 8h30 to 3h30 to 7h30 "drop-off" (meaning that the bus returns to the station when the last passenger is dropped off, without finishing its normal route - I know it happens, because I am often that last passenger).

I go to work using transit. My employer does not offer parking whatsoever, and it takes me 1h30 each way. Which, annoyingly, is faster than driving in rush hour if I could park.

However, when not in rush hour, I have a choice to make. Either I drive to downtown in 30-40 minutes and park. Or, I drive to metro, park, and ride in. Takes an hour at least.

You tell me what choice is the logical one.

Oh, and I also live within 3 miles of a VRE station, but there is no transit there, and nobody can seriously argue that VRE is good for non-commuting purposes. Again, no service out of rush hour.

The question How many urbanites drive when they could walk or Metro? is terribly simplistic.

by Jasper on May 21, 2010 12:59 pm  

:-$ Just realized it said URBANITE, not SUBurbanite. :-$

It's weekend and I need it. Sorry.

/drops of grid now

by Jasper on May 21, 2010 1:01 pm  

I think Duany's views are quite myopic and show that he doesn't realize the new urban experience in South Florida where he lives is unique. Areas like Downtown Miami and South Beach draw not only the suburban "kids" of metro Miami/Dade but young tourist from all over the world. These vacationers are drawn to these places by advertising campaigns that promise a latin influenced party every night of the week. Duany mistakes the drunk tourists this produces as all millenials. I don't think new urbanism is to blame here, maybe it's an economy largely reliant on alcohol infused tourism.

@bill a bob,
If you go to the Ballston-Rosslyn Corridor in Arlington you will see the type of smart growth Montgomery County is trying to bring to the White Flint Sector. Density can be good.

by keith on May 21, 2010 1:54 pm  

Dan - you are still very young. Hopefully, you will eventually learn what Mr. Duany has not throughout an overhyped career as a social engineer. Wether Seaside or any number of generic "New Urbanism" social experiments, the "successful" ones always end up homogenous and overpriced. Disney has been using the same faux design techniques for years. Real diversity, economic and aesthetic, only occurs by accretion. All it takes is one walk through a small Italian town or downtown St. Petersburg, for that matter, to learn how truly great urban design evolves without the overwrought mediocrity from the likes of Andres Duany.

by DLS Architect on May 21, 2010 1:57 pm  

Did you really call downtown St. Petersburg "truly great urban design"?

If you're talking about Russia: read you a book.

If you're talking about Florida: haha, what.

by J.D. Hammond on May 21, 2010 2:19 pm  

J.D.- Clearwater is to St Pete as Alexandria is to DC. That is to say, close but no cigar.

St Pete is actually quite charming

by Alex on May 21, 2010 2:24 pm  

Being in the profession of planning and design, I couldn't agree less with Mr. Duany. His developments seem to be just new surburbs or vacation homes for the wealthy. I find Kentlands to be a really bad "Disneyfied" version of a real neighborhood. Fake, inauthentic, and franky, ugly. Many of their "acclaimed" developments are this way.

In order to live in the city proper, you either have to be really rich, or really poor. Otherwise, you will struggle. Part of the issue in cities proper is the pent up demand for good housing mixed with the lack devlopment and taxable properties. Much of both Baltimore and DC are being held by investors in the case that they gain value in 20 years. This keeps these properties off the market, and often in horrible disprair, degrading the rest of the neighborhood. The rest is eaten up by below market housing, such as projects or senior homes. This concentrates much of the problem of urban areas, and keeps market rate housing at bay. Because of supply and demand, this drives up the prices of market rate apartments and condos. This is not limited to DC or Baltimore, but true of almost every city.

by Scrape on May 21, 2010 5:31 pm  

I had to share this comment on my Twitter stream, because I've been having the same problems too with the article. I'll be blogging in more detail about it, as it touches on some of the same nerves,(click on my hyperlink to figure out why) but even more of them.

I grew up in the real city, got educated and I'm going back for even more education on the real city. Granted, my city is Southern and suburban in appearance, but we have a lot of the same problems, although cost of living is much lower. No buses, no jobs at all and no walkablity are our main ones.

by Kristen on May 21, 2010 6:34 pm  

Duany’s comments on ‘neo-urbanism’ and ‘top-down’ planning (in fascist states, no less) point out that ‘neo-urbanism’ is not the heir to Jane Jacobs, but the enemy. Her point was that good neighbourhoods were organic, and that planning for them had to be piece-meal, ongoing, unobtrusive, and beholden to a democratic process so that the, inevitably destructive, grandiose schemes of politicians and planners, who did not in fact live there, had to fail.

‘Neo-Urbanism’, on the other hand, is the imposition of a particular version of planned urbanity imposed from above by people who believe they know better what people want, but have never created any neighbourhood as interesting as one of the successful organic ones. Do not forget that Duany was a developer, a scourge who have ruined municipal politics with their greed and buying up of the political class.

We have many or these ‘Neo-Urban’ developments in the Toronto area, and none of them are much more vibrant that your average suburb: everyone has the same income, same education, similar complexion, and owns a car they use to shop elsewhere.

by jamesmallon on May 22, 2010 2:34 pm  

Agreed. Cities are a place for all social and economic groups. In fact, it's the diversity of cities that make them so compelling in the first place.

by Mike Ernst on May 22, 2010 3:25 pm  

@Mike Ernst Cities are a place for all social and economic groups. In fact, it's the diversity of cities that make them so compelling in the first place.

That's not necessarily what makes a city a city. For example, in the DC area, the suburbs are far more diverse both in terms of social and economic groups than is Washington.

by Lance on May 22, 2010 5:40 pm  

Good lord. I know exactly what Duany is lamenting.

Case in point: Adams Morgan. And lest anyone call me a "anti-growth hermit", let me mention that I lived in Dupont Circle in the mid-1980s and worked there until 1990, and have spent plenty of time all around the District on and off since then. Remember, if you will, that through the 1990s, the District lost 1/6th of its population, much of that due to the deterioration of the city government as it staggered under the unfunded mandate Congress imposed on the matter of retirement funding for Fire/Rescue and Police departments.

I worked hard to promote the DCFRA takeover, and it was the massive Federal intervention that transformed place like the vicinity of 12th and U Streets NW from post-construction wastelands (Metro tore up that corridor for 15 years) into the thriving party-zone and townhome/condo community it is today. Revitalization did more than just pave the way to de-blight such places as Petworth or Columbia Heights. It promoted a gentrification into the new constructions that replaced the brownfields that had simmered and decayed throughout the whole Crack Wars era, through the Yellow/Green Line construction destruction, and even all of the way back to the MLK Riots. Yet for all of the Dual-Income No Kids ("DINK") gentrification, still the real strength of the city is in the neighborhoods that never were destroyed and hence never had to be rebuilt, other than as and to the degree expected from simple passage of time.

Adams Morgan is in large part exactly such a neighborhood. There's no doubt that a lot of older places have been torn down and replaced, and vacant lots built up into something new and better, for example the parking lots which are now concrete and modern with living space overhead, etc etc.

Yet an example might be given about how a friend of mine lives. He's maybe not quite 50, he's worked all of his adult life at a notable DC law firm and he has homesteaded a place right there on 18th Street NW for 15 years or so. He loves his place in the morning because he can walk to his Dupont Circle offices and he loves his place in the afternoon because he can walk home from his offices, and any way he chooses to walk, he passes parks, monuments, restaurants, grocery stores, haberdashers etc etc. He has all of the joys of urban living until the sun goes down.

The sun goes down on Adams Morgan and it doesn't matter what day of the week it is, he doesn't get to sleep until after last call. On the weekends, he doesn't get to sleep until about dawn. On the weekend, he's almost unable to go anywhere or do anything. His favorite restaurants during the week are packed to where he can't get into them, he can barely walk on the sidewalk, and on the weekends, the sidewalks and the streets are packed to where he can barely walk and this is not an unhealthy or crowd-shy person.

During the week, he's at least on nodding terms with everyone on the street, pretty much; on the weekends, all encounters are with strangers... mostly kids from the suburbs. By "kids" we mean 21-30 or so.

The problem isn't the people in that age group who live in the neighborhood, and there are plenty such who live within a 5-block radius. My friend's homesteaded condo unit is about evenly divided between "kids" and older folks.

The problem is the "commuter partiers" who basically swarm in like locusts and "act like don't nobody know them". And nobody does know them, other perhaps than the people they came with, or maybe the staff at their favorite clubs. They are not part of the neighborhood. They are a plague upon it.

To the businesses they are a boon, but to the neighborhood, to the people who actually live there, they are an ill-mannered mob that descends and trashes the place.

The problem here is not that we don't like "kids"; the problem is that the "kids" descend in mobs and trash the place and are loud as hell as they do so.

The "kids" that actually live in the District's "interesting parts" (Adams Morgan, Georgetown, Woodley Park etc) all learn pretty quickly once they move in, or always knew if they grew up there, that the District is not the place for you to come and trash and tick off the neighbors. The people who live there have to live with any messes they themselves make and have to live with a reputation for making messes, not the reputation you want to have in the District. The "commuter partiers" aren't known by name, so they get a reputation as a class.

Want to feel welcome in the urban attraction zones?

Behave responsibly; behave like you lived there.

That's what the initial remarks were all about...

Or maybe you could build comparable attractions out in the suburbs. Aspen Hill, for example, used to have theaters, music stores, and the cops hadn't crushed the life out of the parks-and-backyards party scenes, so we didn't need to go downtown to have fun. Now all of the "progressive" laws have made it almost impossible to have a fun time in the suburbs, so everyone flocks to the cities, much to the city's dismay. Unless you want to see even the urban entertainment industry reduced to total funlessness, try propagating amongst yourselves of a "we party hard but respectfully" and people will stop complaining.

by Thomas Hardman on May 23, 2010 1:46 pm  

@ Thomas-I can see where you are going with the last comment, I agree even as a 24 year old who would have to come into a downtown area, because I live in a 100% residential area, that you should respect neighbors. Yet, the businesses are the real problem here. They could do some traffic control, but they won't because they are benefiting from all of the extra money. However, because Duany paired the statement about disrespecting the neighborhood, with the one about renting being an improper use of the land, and he put it on people under the age of 30 only, then that's where the problem the statement comes from. I know plenty of people in the 30-60 range who go out, get drunk and get just as rowdy. What he should have said was, I want people to respect neighbors more, when they come into the city and left it there.

by Kristen on May 23, 2010 4:14 pm  

Kristen, I agree with your summation 100%.

Getting all on Duany's case because he more-or-less was overbroad in his remark, that's perhaps a bit overdone in its own right.

As to renting being an improper use of the land, it all depends on how it's done.

I once lived in a group house at 21st and N Streets NW in the District. It was a mixed group but we were in part serving as a sort of overflow dorm for the Corcoran College of Fine Arts. Obviously we had some young partier types and we also had some folks who were just living there because it was available and convenient when people went looking for a place to stay.

The college students, believe it or not, tended to be the most attached to the neighborhood, as best I could tell. They lived there, most of them were very happy to have all of the urbanity right there, all of their friends and shopping too, plus assorted "scenes" also all within walking or biking distance. A lot of the adults (still in the 21-40 range, mostly) had their own interests and scenes. I don't know that that latter part is typical since most of us had our own "scenes" in nearby places, other parts of town, or College Park area "scenes".

But other than for events such as Hallowe'en, we didn't so much go to places like Adams Morgan or Georgetown, mostly because public spectacle crowd scenes of "see and be seen" didn't appeal to us.

Seriously, though, there's something to be said for the idea of not concentrating opportunities for fun into downtowns as if they were some sort of theme parks.

by Thomas Hardman on May 23, 2010 6:28 pm  

Disneyfication is my favorite criticism of DPZ's work. The style police think the fact that if you allow the public to dictate the style of the architecture they'd like in their towns, that inevitably they will chose nostalgic historicist styles. What does the style of the buildings have to do with anything??? And why does it freak out so many design professionals?

Duany's prnciple critique had/has been towards the physical form of the suburbs. Everyone with two brain cells knows it takes time for a city to mature, that's why DPZ pioneered the whole sale saving of as much of the existing landscaping of a site as they designed it. The fact that the new urbanist developments happen within our car dominated environment is hardly their problem. That's how we do what we do, and until the zoning laws change to where development doesn't happen wherever bubba's cashing out, we're going to have a disjointed development pattern.

Plus, look at the architecture Duany's actually designed, he's as tortured about historical styles as most uptight modernists.

by Thayer-D on May 24, 2010 7:42 am  

"Disneyfication" as an aesthetic critique, here, I don't think is relevant. What is relevant to Duany's critiques here is Disneyfication as social control by means of high barriers to entry.

by J.D. Hammond on May 24, 2010 2:53 pm