Mr Brian Beutler says:
I cannot possibly fathom why D.C. lacks the number of book stores, record stores, coffee shops, night clubs, 24-hour restaurants, etc., etc. that you’d expect based on it’s relatively large population of wealthy, single young people. I love my D.C., but I’ve also found that San Francisco, Seattle, Philadelphia, New York City, Boston, and Chicago all have way, way more urban perks than Washington does.
To which Ryan Avent, DC development blogger extraordinaire, responds:
Now one potential explanation, and I very much could be wrong, is that Ezra and Brian generally confine their experiences to a limited area within D.C., and that area is one which has not had all that long to develop. That is, if you take into account other neighborhoods up Wisconsin and Connecticut Avenues that bloggers may not visit much, then you get more of these kinds of businesses. Another explanation is that some of the businesses you’d expect to find in D.C. are instead in Arlington (or Silver Spring or Alexandria). But I think the main issue is that the District has not been all that dense, residentially, for all that long (or rather it was, then it wasn’t, and now it is again). Many of the dense areas of the city were hardest hit by population loss during the city’s long downturn; much of the population that stayed lived in detached, single-family homes away from today’s popular core. Plus, since housing supply is slow to catch up to the number of people who now want to live in the core, housing isn’t cheap and shops skew toward a wealthier crowd.
Too, I think there's occasionally sample bias in what you visit when you don't live in a place. I love Philadelphia, and am pleased as punch about the comeback it's staged; it's a much different, much better place to live then it was when I arrived for my freshman year at Penn to find the campus plastered with warnings about the fatal shooting that had taken place a block from my dorm the previous night.
However, most of Philadelphia is like most of DC: vast stretches of row houses and other low-density housing served by precious little in the way of services, government or otherwise. A few years ago when I visited a friend living in one of the many ungentrified sections of South Philly, I was appalled to realize that the place* still had no public garbage cans, with the result that people walking on the street had turned any open receptacle, from washtubs to flower pots, into makeshift substitutes.
If you're visiting, however, unless you have really, really, poor friends you don't see that part. (The person I was visiting had was sharing an enormous two bedroom apartment that cost a little north of $400 a month.) You see the fun, crowded bits. But those bits are about the same size as, or perhaps a little smaller than, Adams Morgan/Dupont/Georgetown.
Obviously, that doesn't account for all the difference between DC and other places; they really are better economically developed than we are. But I think sample bias accounts for some of the invidious comparison. When I was visiting DC, I always had a great time going out, and always went to a different bar or club. I didn't realize that when I moved here, I would be going to those same six spots over and over and over again.
* This stretch of South Philly, I mean; not the whole city
I think the stultifying effect of being a company town doesn't help. Too many people are on the same schedule. Who's in those 24 hour coffee shops in Manhattan and Philly? Not people who have to be at the daycare by 7.30am to make it to Department of X by 8.30am to be out the door by 5.15pm to nearly run over a pedestrian on K street at 5.20 to get to the daycare before 6pm to get the kids to bed by 8pm to leave enough time to clear a few Meet the Presses off the TiVo before being in bed by 11pm ... And it's not that NYC and Philly doesn't have such people. It's just that their concentration in the population is lower.
The reason D.C. doesn't have as many amenities as messieurs Klein and Beutler would enjoy is because it has been a shithole until recent history. D.C. lost tons of population after the race riots and white flight and then had to endure goddawful governance (read: Marion Barry). It was not until the feds came in and relieved Marion Barry of his responsibilities as Mayor and Williams succeeded him that D.C. has turned around. D.C.'s finances shaped up and some of those ridiculous taxes that people pay actually translated into actual services, not a lot but some. There used to be a joke about Barry's innovative snow removal plan "solar removal". Ten years ago Gallery Place/Chinatown (the part that is not now chinatown, anyhow) was a virtual desert. For this native the pace of development has dizzying. In five years I am sure the neighborhoods that Mr. Klein and Mr. Beutler are complaining about will have the amenities they desire provided Fenty doesn't screw it up (not that I am saying that he will, but this is D.C.).
P O'Neil & Richard have good points.
Those 168. joints of yore were economically viable because they were Workers going to and from 2nd & 3rd shifts at the Mill-- look in the History books, you know, Producing, something other than HELOCs & Regulations.
they were serving Workers...
Megatron writes: A few years ago when I visited a friend living in one of the many ungentrified sections of South Philly, I was appalled to realize that the place* still had no public garbage cans, with the result that people walking on the street had turned any open receptacle, from washtubs to flower pots, into makeshift substitutes.
Why were you appalled? This sounds like a libertarian paradise. Government has no business stealing peoples' money to keep the streets clean. It's a slippery slope from universal garbage cans to universal healthcare.
Row houses as low-density housing? That's like counting the Olive Garden as fine dining because you get a metal fork.
Maybe it's simply smaller than you think.
DC 581K 9K/mi^2
San Francisco 744K 16K/mi^2
Manhattan 1.5M 67K/mi^2
DC has a lower population than either Memphis or Austin. When I lived there, I always felt that the city (as manifested by it's institutions) somehow considered itself far more important culturally and economically than it really was.
On the other hand, as someone else has pointed out, parts of it were filthy and violent place to live for quite some time.
When the Redskins are winning though, the mood is elevated.
MH wrote: That's like counting the Olive Garden as fine dining because you get a metal fork.
Say what, Richie Rich? It is fine dining, compared to your average chain fare. Sure, you can get better Italian meals at an up-market chain like Magianos, or better still at some local five-star wonder where even the HVAC system pumps cool, vine-scented Mediterranean air imported from Tuscany this morning, but that starts to climb above the average person's budget.
Olive Garden sucks marginally, Magiano's sucks massively. That either are considered options for Italian cuisine speaks volumes of the lack of good italian options in D.C.
Who cares?
DC is a pretty small city, especially when compared to NYC, Chicago, SF, LA, Philly, and Seattle. It's even small when compared to its surrounding suburbs. Fairfax County's population is over a million, and Montgomery County's population is just under it. DC is nowhere near that, mostly because DC is a pretty awful place to live, when you take into account its absurdly high violent crime rates, taxes, and piss poor public schools and other city public services.
And since it's not particularly dense, thanks to the law making the Capitol the tallest building, living within the city limits is really no more handy than living in a suburb. Why subject myself to living in DC, when I can get in and out of the city pretty easily for the occasional museum visit or Caps game? And anything else I want, like book stores or 24-hour restaurants, are just as plentiful in the 'burbs.
DC has a lower population than either Memphis or Austin. When I lived there, I always felt that the city (as manifested by it's institutions) somehow considered itself far more important culturally and economically than it really was.
Surely you know that's because Austin and Memphis have annexed most of what would be considered suburbs in the northeast, and D.C. is the core of a much larger metro area than either of the two places you named.
Yup, but keep in mind that much of the activity, including the best bookstores and many of the best concerts and certainly the best restaurants, and the best nature walks, are all out here in the suburbs. DC is an unusually small city and the suburbs are especially close.
I don't know about best restaurants. IALW isn't in the suburbs, its in the exurbs. Maestro can be paired with Citronelle, but that leaves Makoto in the city. Though the suburbs have their share of very good restaurants (Eve, 2941, Ray's), so does the city (Prime Rib, 1789, CityZen, Marcel's, Komi, Kinkead's, Poste). As the Washingtonian indicates, most of the best restaurants in DC are *in* DC:
http://www.washingtonian.com/restaurantreviews/2/index.html
Tyler Cowen:
Yup, but keep in mind that much of the activity, including the best bookstores and many of the best concerts and certainly the best restaurants, and the best nature walks, are all out here in the suburbs. DC is an unusually small city and the suburbs are especially close.
Which kind of implies to me that the spiritually superior suburbs you're talking about (which you haven't specified) are functionally equivalent to places within the city limits of other cities, like say Memphis or Austin or Seattle. Or are you actually talking about Reston and Germantown and Waldorf?
Mind you, I'm not saying that either the District or the entire region is superior or inferior to any other city/region in any particular way, but I do think it's the region that matters for the quality of life issues that y'all are talking about and not the juridstictional boundaries. This whole discussion is rapidly turning into "I wouldn't live where you live, cuz it sucks."
Presumably Tyler Cowen has in mind Silver Spring, Bethesda, and Alexandria. Clarendon and the other nearby metro stations are supposed to be good, too, but I wouldn't know personally. I love Brookland (in NE DC) dearly for the housing stock, CUA, the National Shrine, the Franciscan Monastery, and the proximity to downtown, but it has almost no yuppie amenities and barely any retail.
The large area around the Mall has a really desolate feeling--all those huge monuments and impressive buildings, and almost nothing at street level besides hot dog trucks. You have to either go through security into a museum for a cup of coffee, or you have to go several blocks away. Fortunately, those areas are a lot more vibrant than they used to be.
As the Washingtonian indicates, most of the best restaurants in DC are *in* DC.
Heh, do you realize that Tyler Cowen, to whom you're replying, has his own guide to restaurants in the area? As his guide indicates, most of the best restaurants in DC are in the suburbs:
http://www.gmu.edu/jbc/Tyler/tyler_cowen.htm
I agree with him, personally, and generally agree with his recommendations. You seem to be focusing on fine dining restaurants only, but I think that's a mistake.
Tyler-- I note that Le Tire Bouchon has apparently closed. Sad.
Amy P--
Actually, if you look at his dining guide, you'll see that Professor Cowen finds Silver Spring, Bethesda, and Old Town Alexandria generally overrated when it comes to food (just like Georgetown.)
I'm not surprised. They are very pretty, though, with lots of stuff at street level. You don't get that feeling (as you do so many places) of an urban desert.
John,
There are obviously *more* restaurants in the suburbs than DC, since the population of the suburbs exceeds DC by a factor of at least 10. But for the most part there are equivalent restaurants at all ranges of the scale (there are a few "must go to Virginia" restaurants at the low end, primarily Crisp n Juicy and Thai Square), and at the level where there really are only a few stars - the top - DC exceeds the suburbs despite only a fraction of the population and space.
I am intrigued by the idea that since D.C. is such a company town, and everyone has to be at work around 8:00 in the morning, that there is a lack of services to those with more unusual schedules.
The only problem with this is almost every other city has the same 8 - 5 schedule for the majority of its citizens.
So what type of people are missing from D.C. who would normally hang out at 24-hour diners and/or hang out at coffee shops?
- Artists
- Graphic Designers?
- Students?
It seems D.C. would have plenty of students, so is there something about the way those campuses within D.C are designed that they would be more all encompassing in terms of facilities (versus allowing the community around them to devleop the necessary business for students to hang out in?)
I would then hazard to guess that due to the crime-rate in D.C. since the late 60's through even today, most of these campues have built fairly self-enclosed environments for students. So students are more apt to hang out at the Student Union versus a local coffee shop. And this may have been for safety reasons first, and even if the area around is no longer dangerous, the tradition has been set.
But for the most part there are equivalent restaurants at all ranges of the scale
Sorry, I disagree. There are whole ethnicities that are far, far superior in the suburbs than in DC. Of course, that's because DC is small, and often it's particular areas for particular cuisines, but it's true. Vietnamese to give one example; Falls Church (particular the Eden Center) has a ridiculous advantage in Vietnamese food (other than pho which is common lots of places, though I haven't particularly looked for pho in DC). The suburbs clearly have the edge in Korean places, not just Annandale, though Annandale is clearly impressive. Salvadorean is another that is simply superior in the suburbs. If you want Japanese food that's like that eaten by ordinary Japanese, neither sushi nor fancy nor kaiseki, the suburbs are the place to go. (DC is the only place with an all kaiseki restaurant, though.)
Obviously some places are better in DC: fine dining and Ethiopian come to mind immediately.
I think people who say Philadelphia has more going on than D.C. have never been to Philadelphia. It is actually much less happening than D.C. -- it just has tall buildings and we don't.
Most downtown areas shut down after hours, that's just how it is. Unless you are in NYC of course and that city cannot fairly be compared to any other in the U.S.
I don't think D.C. is "an unusually small city," I just think most people older than 30 don't go anywhere but Georgetown and Dupont. And people who live in the suburbs only usually explore their D.C. work neighborhoods.
D.C. is bigger than Boston.
I think that DC college culture is probably rather different than elsewhere. When we moved so my husband could take a job at a DC college, we lived at the end of the metro line in suburban MD and I saw basically nothing of the campus community. Missing the environment we had enjoyed as graduate students, we moved on campus. We saw a lot of undergraduate life, but I was surprised to discover how minimally the faculty were involved in campus life, and how little we saw of the faculty who were mostly teaching and then zipping back to their farflung suburban homes (from one end of the vast DC metro area to the other is probably a full morning's drive). If that is true for professors (who have the most control over their time of practically anybody), it is almost certainly much more true of 9-5ers.
Isn't it possible we are all overestimating the average income of young single people in DC? I mean, an awful lot of young, single folks in DC are low-paid interns, Congressional staffers, journalists, think tankers, etc. Some of these people can afford to work for peanuts because they already have money, sure, but I would think that the percentage of young, educated singles in DC who make a good salary is much lower than the percentage among a similar population in NY, Chicago, Boston, etc.
If you look at the taxes, crime rate, and lack of services, what surprises me is that any businesses other than lawyers and lobbyists chose a location within DC.
Vietnamese, Korean, and fast-food Peruvian are the only examples I can think of. I disagree about Japanese - there are a plethora of good non-sushi, non kaiseki Japanese restaurants in DC. And some of the sushi-specialists (like Sushi Taro in Dupont) happen to do *excellent* work in other areas.
For German, the best places are in DC (Old Europe and Leopold's). Same with Ethiopian, salvadorian, brazilian, classic peruvian, indian, scandanaian, and middle eastern, just off the top of my head.
At least D.C. is not Phoenix. You hear the locals talking about Phoenix being the 6th largest city or some such true nonsense, and the downtown area is post apocalypse empty after a certain hour: everything closed, with a German tourist or two walking about looking excited for no reason.
Only recently, with ASU expanding campuses to the center city, will it finally start evolving into a true city.
I go to sleep dreaming of places like D.C., or NYC where I grew up.
Pheonix may have the worst downtown of any major city, save for maybe Detroit, and even then, that is iffy.
But, yuo could also point to Tulsa, Oklahoma City, St. Louis, etc.. as places with awful downtowns. One of the biggest problems down South and out West in terms of urban living is the allure of the Golf/Resort community. Because of the year-round opportunity to play golf, these become much more attractive than living in a more urban setting, since you could pass the time playing golf.
In the colder climates, where for at least 3 months out of the year you cannot play golf, there is more of an interest in activities involving urban activities, such as theatre, movies, bars, restaurants.
Great boys
8f457f
Yhanks you
b1cce66ea4e6c3950ed88a6c0678c329