Gentrifying 14th st., or trading hookers and crack for hookers and blow
Not wanting to get caught up in the pissing match that went on in the comments section of the DCist post on the new development at 14th and V St., I'll use my forty acres here to say my piece.
1. The stretch of 14th st. between U st. all the way up to Park st. is almost without question one of the shabbiest stretches of Northwest. Its little more than empty lots and bland facades looking upon concrete. Down right ugly. Anyone who objects to new construction projects in this stretch needs to stop being a fucking mouth piece for their "radical" agenda and open their eyes. Sure, some people may think that "Union Row" may not have the aesthetic appeal of the surrounding rowhouses, or the art deco buildings that can be found scattered through Dupont, but no one in their right mind is going to object to development because they think that a rubble strewn lot is more attractive than a cheesy steel and glass structure.
2. Affordable housing is the key issue here, and it is an issue that the pro-development folks like to shunt off to the side because in this town class=race and no developer wants to be labeled as a racist. New developments are bringing in ass-loads of expensive units. Older buildings are being renovated or gutted to create new luxury condo units. The pressures of rising property values mean that long time residents are forced to leave because they can't afford their new rent or their property taxes are higher than their income. The question of affordable housing is then where do these people go? In this city there isn't anywhere. Hell, I have a half-decent job and there's no way in hell that I could afford to buy in this city without taking on more debt than I am willing/the banks will give me. Now before you get all pissy on me, I was born in this city, and I've lived here for 24 years. If I want to keep living here, it should be my choice. Its nice that the city has brought in retailers and developers, but it has an obligation to its current residents.
3. The new residents conflict with the existing community. How do you think the owners of the new luxury condos are going to feel when they realize that they are across the street from Martha's Table? Or that Lazarus House is just up the block? What about that big satellite dish on the other corner of 14th and V.? It didn't take the new Georgetown residents too long before they started making unforeseen demands in the name of their property values. It is one thing to try to better your community, its another to destroy your community in the name of your investment.
There is certainly a lot more to be said on this issue, but I'll leave it be for now since I have to go to a very important meeting on shelves. Go and gentrify safely. And if you know the guy who spray paints anti-gentrification tags in C-Heights, punch him in the fucking head for being such a douche bag.
1. The stretch of 14th st. between U st. all the way up to Park st. is almost without question one of the shabbiest stretches of Northwest. Its little more than empty lots and bland facades looking upon concrete. Down right ugly. Anyone who objects to new construction projects in this stretch needs to stop being a fucking mouth piece for their "radical" agenda and open their eyes. Sure, some people may think that "Union Row" may not have the aesthetic appeal of the surrounding rowhouses, or the art deco buildings that can be found scattered through Dupont, but no one in their right mind is going to object to development because they think that a rubble strewn lot is more attractive than a cheesy steel and glass structure.
2. Affordable housing is the key issue here, and it is an issue that the pro-development folks like to shunt off to the side because in this town class=race and no developer wants to be labeled as a racist. New developments are bringing in ass-loads of expensive units. Older buildings are being renovated or gutted to create new luxury condo units. The pressures of rising property values mean that long time residents are forced to leave because they can't afford their new rent or their property taxes are higher than their income. The question of affordable housing is then where do these people go? In this city there isn't anywhere. Hell, I have a half-decent job and there's no way in hell that I could afford to buy in this city without taking on more debt than I am willing/the banks will give me. Now before you get all pissy on me, I was born in this city, and I've lived here for 24 years. If I want to keep living here, it should be my choice. Its nice that the city has brought in retailers and developers, but it has an obligation to its current residents.
3. The new residents conflict with the existing community. How do you think the owners of the new luxury condos are going to feel when they realize that they are across the street from Martha's Table? Or that Lazarus House is just up the block? What about that big satellite dish on the other corner of 14th and V.? It didn't take the new Georgetown residents too long before they started making unforeseen demands in the name of their property values. It is one thing to try to better your community, its another to destroy your community in the name of your investment.
There is certainly a lot more to be said on this issue, but I'll leave it be for now since I have to go to a very important meeting on shelves. Go and gentrify safely. And if you know the guy who spray paints anti-gentrification tags in C-Heights, punch him in the fucking head for being such a douche bag.
posted by Fletch at
12:19 PM
7 Comments:
Lemme see if I have this straight:
1. Gentrification is good and anyone who says otherwise is either a "radical" or a douchebag (by the way, don't know the tagger nor have I seen the tags...). Therefore, criticism of PN Hoffman cookie-cutters is ridiculous.
2. Low-income and even moderate income have a place in DC, even though they can't afford PN Hoffman new construction or renovated luxury suites AND no one in DC seems to give a rat's ass.
Are you trying to say that the DC council and mayor ought to take this issue seriously and start getting more concessions from these land pirates?
By
cs, at 10:14 PM
No, you've got about half of it.
1. Development, per se, is not bad. Empty, trash-strewn lots should be built upon. Crumbling buildings should be rehabbed. People who oppose this type of redevelopment on principle are ideologues who probably couldn't find their ass with their hands unless their anti-gentrification pamphlets told them where it was. Therefore, criticism of PN Hoffman cookie cutters as unwanted developments is misplaced. Criticism as characterless facades is still valid, but that is a secondary point that has little to do with gentrification.
2. Low-income and even moderate income residents must have a place in DC, even though they can't afford PN Hoffman new construction or renovated luxury suites AND no one in DC seems to give a rat's ass. They work here, they want to live here. If no one cared about moving to PG County or Manassas, then "gentrification" wouldn't be a big deal. However, DC is their home. It is my home also, and I would like to be able to afford a place to live when I am ready to buy.
The DC council and the mayor should do their jobs and look after their constituents, rich or poor, to the best of their abilities, rather than looking to turn this city into an island of wealth and privilege.
By
Fletch, at 7:56 AM
I don't see how you can separate out Point 1 from gentrification effects in general. I agree with you that trash-strewn lots should be built upon, etc., but many activists who oppose development as it is currently proposed in these instances are not mindlessly opposing all development. I think it's a straw man argument. You can't let PN Hoffman or any other dev. company come in and do whatever they want and expect Point 2 to ever come about. Here's what I think:
a. DC rent control is a joke. When I lived in a rent control building, the rent ceiling was set so high that the landlord simply raised rent 50 bucks every 6 months -- we started at 850/mth and the ceiling was 1600. That was more than 10 years ago.
b. DC isn't doing anything to get low-income housing concessions from these developers, and their definition of low-income is ridiculously high -- figure escapes me right now -- so when they do get an occasional bone (like 3 units in a 60 unit complex), it's not really low-income.
By
cs, at 10:32 AM
Doing nothing?:
Kenyon Square is a mixed-use building that will front the east side of 14th Street from the metro entrance at Irving Street to the northern corner of that block at Kenyon Street. The building will consist of 153 condominium units, street level retail stores, underground parking, and a landscaped garden rooftop. 20% of the residential units will be set-aside for affordable housing in three different income levels (30%, 60% and 80% of Area Median Income).
from here:
http://www.grahamwone.com/archive/2005_01_30_archive.html
And strict rent controls are what cause apt. buildings to be converted to condos, so there is a displacement factor there too.
There are still dozens of great neighborhoods with affordable homes in this city. They just aren't on a metro line or anywhere near Adams Morgan.
And what's with the cookie cutter derogation? I live in a Wardman building that looks like the other 5 Wardman buildings in Columbia Heights built in the 1910s. High capacity buildings have always been and will always be generic looking. If that's really your problem, don't blame PN Hoffman - blame the DC Council and the zoning board for allowing these high capacity structures (which generate tons of tax revenue, btw).
By
Anonymous, at 1:18 PM
Despite the numbers in the Kenyon Square complex, I have to agree with Mass that the city is doing very little to create low-income housing. Yes, 20% of Kenyon Square will be affordable, but what percentage of units in Columbia Heights have been priced out of the lower income range, 80%?
It is true that there are still nice neighborhoods, with good housing stock, but at what point is it no longer fair to shunt the poor off into areas with no metro access and few, if any, convienences? Market value be damned, I am not comfortable with telling people that they need to leave their homes because some one else is willing to pay $900,000 for their rowhouse.
As for the cookie-cutter derogation (nice word choice btw), let me start by saying that the Hoffman buildings are not ugly. But they also don't have any character. Their glass and steel design is much more fitting of a Bed, Bath, and Beyond out in Rockville or Bailey's Crossroads, than for a mixed use structure on 14th st. I would guess that your Wardman building has some nice stone work or brick work that lends it a touch of interest, something that the Hoffman buildings sorely lack.
If you've looked around the rowhouses in Columbia Heights and Mt. P., you've probably realized that the same designs pop up over and over again. C-heights was one of the earliest "housing developments" in the late-19th and early 20th centuries. The definition of cookie cutter. However, the massed facades give the neighborhood a certain look, namely that of a rowhouse neighborhood, like you find in Dupont Circle, Georgetown, Glover Park, parts of Brooklyn and Manhattan. When a developer plops down a new structure without taking into proper consideration what the surrounding neighborhood looks like, then people will attack it for being a "cookie cutter." A building can still be generic looking and blend in.
One final point going back to Mass's comment, development and gentrification are two distinct phenomena that sometimes go hand-in-hand. Southwest was "developed" in the 1960s, but I don't think that anyone would claim that L'Enfant Plaza is gentrified. Columbia Heights is in the midst of both processes.
By
Fletch, at 1:58 PM
Maybe I'm oversensitive to these PN Hoffman boxes -- your description, fletch, of them being suitable as big box stores is really spot on -- because my back door opens onto two of them, the first of which seemed to take inspiration from the Holocaust Museum and the second of which has a nearly windowless backside that makes it look like a county prison.
I am however happier with them than I was with the vacant lots and the liquor store/prostitution apartment they replaced.
By
cs, at 8:19 PM
The Columbia Heights developments have done a much nicer job of integrating their design into the surrounding structures. Granted their aren't many other buildings in all of the empty lots, but the Tivoli Theater serves as a soldi keystone in these developments. Something that PN Hoffman and others should have taken into consideration further down 14th st.
Not to say that horrible design decisions are left solely to gentrifying areas. I was in Tenleytown yesterday, and the monstrosity that is growing out of the old Hechingers is stunning in its disconnect from the surrounding neighborhood. I think that I would really like the towering condo/box store complex, if it was in Chelsea, or a warehouse district, but did the architects realize that they wre plopping that shit down among single family homes?
By
Fletch, at 9:53 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home