Dupont Circle: Walkable, Mass Transit-Friendly, Unappealing
by Judd WileyMay 31st, 2008, 3:39 pm
We often get emails and comments informing us that the most desirable real estate in the country is in “walkable, transit-friendly, less car dependent places” like Dupont Circle, Greenwich Village, Haight-Ashbury, etc.
Yes, there are a lot of people who like to live in these areas. We already know this. That’s why rents are so expensive. Thanks for the news from the obvious desk.
However, seldom mentioned (but equally true) is the fact that, to a large number of Americans, places like Dupont Circle, Greenwich Village, and Haight-Ashbury are completely undesirable locations. Let me give you an example from my own backyard.
Dupont Circle. One of the hottest, hippest, coolest spots in all of Washington DC. Located at the intersection of Massachusetts Avenue, Connecticut Avenue, New Hampshire Avenue, P Street and 19th Street. Has its own Metro station giving residents easy access to the rest of the city. Has its own park. Filled with trendy and exotic restaurants, bars, coffee houses, stores, and much much more. Intensely bikeable. Intensely walkable.
I would never live in Dupont Circle. Here are my reasons:
(1) High Cost of Living – A decent one-bedroom apartment in Dupont goes for about $1,700 per month in rent. A fancy apartment costs $3,000 or more. Add in $300 a month for a parking space if you drive. And so on.
(2) High Taxes - Dupont Circle is located in Washington DC, which has one of the highest tax burdens in the country. The nonpartisan Tax Foundation estimated DC’s state/local tax burden at 12.5% of income, which is higher than in all but four states and well above the national average of 11.0%. “Tax Freedom Day,” the day when DC residents have earned enough money to pay off their total tax bill for the year, in May 3, which is 10 days later than the overall U.S. Tax Freedom Day on April 23. Virginia’s is April 25, Maryland’s is April 28. That’s just personal income taxes. As far as the business tax climate is concerned, DC ranks sixth from the bottom, with businesses hamstrung by high corporate taxes, sales and gross receipts taxes, unemployment insurance taxes, and taxes on wealth, including residential and commercial property. Too horrible to even think about. In comparison, Virgina ranks 14th and Maryland 24th.
(3) Bad Public Schools – The public school system in Washington DC, which includes the Dupont area, is the worst in the nation. It ranks 51 out of 51. Most of DC is filled with ignorant riff-raff and their amazingly self-defeating ghetto-gang culture that mocks education, glorifies stupidity, and leads nowhere. If you live in DC, you’re essentially committing child abuse if you sent your kids to public school. Private school is the only option, but not everyone can afford to pay. In comparison, Virginia and Maryland rank in the top five nationwide for public schools. If you live in Virginia or Maryland, your kids will go to some of the best public schools in the country. If you ever have some free time, check out Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Fairfax, Virginia. Incredible stuff.
(4) Crime-Ridden Surroundings – Dupont, despite being a hot, hip, trendy locale, is surrounded by crime-infested areas such as Adams Morgan, Mount Pleasant, Columbia Heights and the U Street corridor. Robberies are very common, with victims being held up at gunpoint and knifepoint. In fact, there are more robberies per capita in DC than in New York, Los Angeles, and other large cities. According to the Washington Post, many former drug dealers have transformed themselves into stickup men in recent years due to police crackdowns on narcotics trafficking. At night, these thugs descend into vibrant, walkable, transit-friendly neighborhoods – including Dupont Circle – where they prey on the weak and unsuspecting.
(5) The Weenies – In addition to the high cost of living, high taxes, horrible public schools, and crime-ridden surroundings, Dupont Circle is filled to the brim with rich, liberal weenies who spend their free time cooking up an elaborate stew of zoning, licensing, environmental, and public safety regulations “to promote and protect the interests of the residents.” If you want to build a large apartment complex or store, you have to sit in judgement before a weenie tribunal, explaining why your private enterprise is in the best interests of “the community.” Along with the nannies and the weenies comes an endless parade of left-wing protest marches, rallies, meet-ups, sit-downs, stand-ups, speak-outs, and other activist nonsense. Go to Google Images and search for “Dupont Circle Protest.” 31,000 results. Exhausting.
(As an aside: The elephant in room when discussing Dupont is, of course, homosexuality. Anyone with half a brain knows that Dupont is the center of all things gay in DC … 200,000 at Capital Pride every year … the Dupont Circle High Heel Race … I could care less.)
Bottom Line: While very desirable to many people, “walkable, transit-friendly, less car dependent places” like Dupont Circle – and Greenwich Village and Haight-Ashbury and many others - are very unattractive to a large number of Americans, myself included. There are simply other, more important factors that the average American takes into account when choosing where to live. In order to find affordable rents, low taxes, decent schools, a safe environment, and acceptable neighbors, we often move to un-walkable, transit-unfriendly, more car dependent places.
“Well, if you hate Dupont so much, then don’t live there!” you say. And we don’t! But the ignorant and incorrect assumptions about why we live in the suburbs and commute to work everyday keep rolling in. Don’t assume that we suburbanites actually want to live miles and miles away from our offices. Don’t think we want to sit in traffic for hours each day or cram into overcrowded Metros that are always late. There are other, more important factors at work. That’s all.
Here’s my question: Why can’t “walkable, transit-friendly, less car dependent” urban environments incorporate the attractive elements of the suburbs? “Urbanists” spend too much time denegrating “suburban sprawl” and not enough time examining the very valid reasons why many Americans prefer these locations. Give me a transit-friendly city neighborhood with low taxes, low crime, top-notch public schools, and minimal weenies, and I’ll move there in a heart beat (if I can afford it).
Posted in Uncategorized Rage |
>>Bottom Line: While very desirable to many people, “walkable, transit-friendly, less car dependent places” like Dupont Circle – and Greenwich Village and Haight-Ashbury and many others - are very unattractive to a large number of Americans, myself included. There are simply other, more important factors that the average American takes into account when choosing where to live.<<
How wrong are you?
You write as if you represent the views of “the average American” and utterly throw contempt on choices all people make.
You will never understand why living in DC is desirable for many people and that’s perfectly fine.
Judd,
The market says otherwise. It says that the residential, office and retail real estate around Dupont and in the more transit-rich, walkable, bikeable parts of D.C. is some of the most desirable real estate in the entire United States.
The market says that Americans want take back the towns, villages and cities that they lost to big box auto-sprawl. That market signal is only growing louder as gas prices go up.
Maybe Alexandria is more your thing?
Capitalist,
You’re completely right that the Dupont area is “some of the most desirable real estate in the entire United States.” The evidence is clear and unassailable: the high price of real estate.
My point is that even though Dupont is very attractive to many people, it’s very unattractive to many other people.
As of 2005, Census data shows that DC’s population is declining, while Virginia’s and Maryland’s populations are increasing. According to the Washington Post, “Demographers point out that much of the city’s revitalization has focused on singles and childless couples, while those leaving largely have been families with a few children.”
I don’t like to operate in the anecdotal space, but many of my friends and acquaintances who live in Virginia would never live in DC for the completely non-transportation related reasons listed above.
Fact is that the “transit-rich, walkable, bikeable” parts of America are mostly located in urban areas. In urban areas are urban problems that many Americans don’t want to deal with. That’s why they live in the suburbs.
“Big box auto-sprawl” is more than just big box stores and cars everywhere. Factors such as price, taxes, schooling, crime, and neighbors play a big role into why people live in these areas.
I ask my question again: Why can’t “walkable, transit-friendly, less car dependent” urban environments incorporate the attractive elements of the suburbs?
Judd,
I suppose it depends on what you think the attractive elements of the suburbs are but this, in many ways, is the goal of Streetsblog and the Livable Streets movement, as I read it.
Not every dwelling unit in the city can have a garage built into it (if that’s what you think is attractive about the suburbs) but Streetsblog argues, day after day, that there’s no reason why cities can’t become healthier, greener, more accomodating human habitats.
And while there are certainly challenges in bringing transit to a low-density place, there’s no reason why suburbs can’t become more walkable, bikeable and transit-oriented as well.
But it does require making some trade-offs. One of those trade-offs, almost certainly, is to stop pouring so much of our nation’s public and private wealth into automobile infrastructure and to create more incentives and encouragement for developers to build the walkable, transit-friendly, less car-dependent communities that so many Americans really seem to prefer to live in when given the choice.
If you plan and build and invest for cars and traffic, you get cars and traffic.
If you plan and build and invest for transit-friendly, walkable, bikeable places, that’s what you get.
Capitalist,
If I lived in Dupont, or Greenwich Village, or Brooklyn, or any of the other bikeable, walkable, transit-friendly locales, there’s no way I would own a car! Cars are a huge drain on personal income and a big pain in the ass! Lots of suburbanites would agree with me.
Another personal anecdote. I bought a car about 6 months ago from CarMax, which cost me $12,000. I just took it in for the “60,000 mile service,” which cost $400. I have to pay for gas at $50-75 per fill-up. I have to pay for parking, tolls, etc. The main reason that I would ever consider living in Dupont or any of the other places is the fact that I wouldn’t have to own a car!
I just finished up grad school in DC, and took the Metro to work everyday and then the bus. Two years of no car payments, gas payments, service charges (where they really screw you), tolls, fees, fines, etc. Wonderful!
If you go and read some of our other posts on Commuter Outrage, you’ll find that Lewis and I are HUGE proponents of mass transit. We spend a lot of time bashing the DC Metro, and the incompetent fools that run it. We want more cars per train. We want extensions way out into the suburbs. We want better qualified operators. We want a Metro that would rival the Paris Metro.
Here’s the dirty not-so-secret truth. WMATA refuses to take the smart and necessary steps to properly maintain and expand the Metro. For instance, there’s minimal advertising on DC Metro trains and stations. The stations are almost completely bare! I want to see wall to wall advertising, raking in money every minute the Metro is in operation. There’s plenty more where that came from.
In our opinion, mass transit is wonderful and necessary. In fact, one of the main purposes of Commuter Outrage is to aggressively push for more of it.
That said, we don’t believe in jamming behaviors and attitudes down peoples throats. Thus, we don’t think it’s our place to convince other people to get out of their cars (esp. when there’s no alternatives for them to begin with). We believe that the individual American should be allowed to make up his mind about how to get from point A to point B. We don’t think the government should be incentivizing / decentivizing attitudes and behavior through taxes, tolls, fees, fines, surcharges, and regulations.
If oil goes to $500 a barrel and people start dropping off their gas-powered cars at the junkyard and hollering for more mass transit and electric cars, we’re all in favor of it. Power to the people.
The problem with Streetsblog, from our extensive reading, is its nonstop bashing of gas-powered cars and their drivers, its proliferation of conspiracy theories about how the government and big business have tricked the majority of Americans into driving all over the place, and its propagation of wildly unrealistic utopian visions of a bikeable, walkable, transit-friendly, CAR-FREE world (which, let’s be honest, is going to be very hard to create).
As Lewis has pointed out already, here’s the likely go-forward scenario (in our view) as we near the end of oil. At some point, America is going to wise up about nuclear energy. We’re going to de-wussify ourselves, realize that Chernobyl and Three Mile Island were anomalies rather than the norm, and take the necessary steps to invest in and build nuclear power plants all over the country. These power plants are going to provide cheap, clean, efficient energy which will power a new generation of electric cars, which will be used by the majority of Americans.
Again, this is what we think is the likely outcome of the current oil crisis. That said, if the majority of Americans say, “Screw the car. We want to bike and walk and take mass transit,” we’ll support that too. We’ll bash anyone who says individual citizens shouldn’t get the transportation choices they want.
Streetsblog needs to convince Americans that they’re better off walking, biking, or taking mass transit to work. Unfortunately, these are not options right now for most Americans, due to a whole array of historical, sociological, political, economic, and ideological reasons. So we disagree with any tax or regulatory attempts to move these Americans away from their cars towards these non-existent alternatives.
Thanks for your comments.
I’m not sure whether nuclear powered cars is a viable or even smart idea.
I do know, however, that it sounds expensive. And if you want it to happen then it’s going to take a vast array of your dreaded “taxes, tolls, fees, fines, surcharges, and regulations” to make it happen.
If you wait til oil is $500/barrel (or even $150), then America will already be too broke to build pretty much any infrastructure. And our all money is in the pockets of other countries, many of whom hate us.
The time is now to use govt to help industry help Americans transition to the next economy.
Hey Kob,
It sounds to me like you are the one disparaging choices people make.
Why don’t you enlighten us as to why so many people prefer living in DC since we don’t seem to know what we’re talking about and you so clearly speak for the average American in a way that we cannot?
Capitalist,
We don’t think there will be nuclear powered automobiles, there will be electric ones - in fact, there already are. But what we think will happen is that the automobile manufacturers will invest in battery technology to make these cars more viable, and people will fuel them the same way they fuel existing electric vehicles - they’ll plug them in at home.
I don’ think there will be millions of little nuclear reactors driving around, nor would I want that.
I disagree with the assessment that it will be that expensive, most of those costs will be bourne by the people who buy the new cars, which the will do anyway, and the industry that develops the technology, which they have an incentive to do to retain their market share.
The government will front the cost of the nuclear power plants, but they’re going to have to move in this direction anyway.
One note, the focus of gay life in DC is shifting as wealthier heterosexual couples move into Dupont. Other than that, I agree, wonderful city living can be a real pain in the ass.
Koe -
That’s interesting. Where’s the focus shifting to? Do you think Capital Pride and the Dupont Circle High Heel Race will eventually move to new locations?
Maybe Koe and Dark can discuss this topic in a more relveant forum.
Not to mention that its “Pancakes Across America” Month at IHOP.
Maine Bluberry is the best, followed by California Strawberry.
Don’t take my work for it.
G-D Bless,
See you at IHOP.
Mr. Kaag.
Wait a second - high real estate prices make an area undesirable?
Care to explain this thinking? Last time I checked, desirability was the main reason why places like Stockholm, Monaco, Connecticut, central Bombay, and Manhattan were expensive while places like Dessau, Detroit, North Dakota and Norilsk were not.
At least there is finally someone out there who would prefer to live in a foreclosed house in Youngstown and be able to drive everywhere without needing to stop at a crosswalk.
NONY,
First, the definition of “desirable” changes from person to person. One man’s trash is another man’s treasure. Clearly, there are enough people who want to live in Dupont Circle that it costs $1,700 for a decent 1 bedroom (actually, more like $2,000+). To these people, it’s a very desirable area, which is reflected in the real estate prices, since their demand for real estate in Dupont is greater than the supply. That said, a large number of Americans, myself included, would never live in Dupont because of the cost of living, high taxes, bad schools, crime ridden surroundings, and weenie liberals. To us, the Dupont area isn’t worth $2,000 per month for a 1 bedroom.
Second, I’ve never mentioned Youngstown, Ohio, but I find it funny that you bring it up, considering that your name links to a website called “Design New Haven.” Just as Youngstown is a declined steel town, New Haven (like Bridgeport) was once a center for highly skilled manufacturers. Then the jobs left, and New Haven with left with the gangbangers, drug addicts, homeless people, and assorted petty criminals who wreaked havoc on the local population. After decades of apathy, Yale University was essentially shamed into pouring its $15 billion endowment into the surrounding area.
You can scoff at Youngstown all you want, but New Haven is essentially the same city plus a wealthy benefactor.
“My point is that even though Dupont is very attractive to many people, it’s very unattractive to many other people.”
Good point.
Makes me think, though. Did you know that literally millions of people choose not to live in McLean, Va. everyday? One of the toniest drivable suburbs in the country, with great schools, low crime, and roads galore; where many in DC power positions choose to buy their estates. Prices are high, and it’s desirable. But it’s completely unattractive to millions of people. It’s just like Dupont Circle, man.
“My point is that even though Dupont is very attractive to many people, it’s very unattractive to many other people.”
Um.
It’s sorta like how literally millions of people choose not to live in McLean, Va. everyday? One of the toniest drivable suburbs in the country, with great schools, low crime, and roads galore; where many in DC power positions choose to buy their estates. Prices are high, and it’s desirable.
But I’m noticing that it’s completely unattractive to millions of people. I mean, I know like at least 1,000 people off the top of my head who choose not to live there. And there’s gotta be like close to 300 million more people who I don’t know.
Steve,
Fair enough, and I do appreciate good sarcasm. I will, however, repeat the first sentence of my post:
“We often get emails and comments informing us that the most desirable real estate in the country is in ‘walkable, transit-friendly, less car dependent places’ like Dupont Circle, Greenwich Village, Haight-Ashbury, etc.”
My point was to explain to the walkable/bikeable/transit-friendly crowd — who are very quick to throw around Dupont Circle real estate prices as examples of how America is moving toward a car-free utopia — that there are valid non-transportation reasons why many Americans don’t want to live in urban centers. This idea that Americans flock to the suburbs so they can drive their cars is at best an unproven hypothesis.
And you’re right, there are many valid reasons why other Americans would never live in “suburbs” like McLean. No one here was arguing otherwise.