Should there be any doubt that LA belongs among the big 6 urban US cities?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

DC was 60% Black in the 2000 census, so dropping to 40% by 2020 was a pretty dramatic change in just two decades.

Yeah, DC was nicknamed "Chocolate City" in the postwar decades. It was the blackest major U.S. city. I think it peaked around 70%+ maybe in the 70's and 80's?

I still remember places like H Street, U Street, Georgia Ave. and the like being almost 100% black neighborhoods. When I was in college in late 1990's/early 2000's, DC was almost totally black east of 16th Street and north of Logan Circle. Adams Morgan was considered edgy and fringe. 14th Street was really sad looking, with tons of vacant buildings. F Street downtown was a black shopping district, not that different from Woodward in Detroit during the same time period. Nowadays, there are white people living in almost every neighborhood west of the river.

[Crawford]

It's hard to imagine, but 20 years ago there was a lower income black shopping district just a few blocks from the White House:

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8973838,...QArStNCPHkA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

This stretch of F Street had hip-hop record stores, black-oriented sneaker, clothing and wig stores, and even a legacy department store on its last legs (Woodward & Lothrop). It's hard to imagine now with all the generic renovations and upscale new businesses.

There's something about DC gentrification that's extra bland compared to the other older eastern cities. I can't put my finger on it, but a gentrified block in Boston or Philly doesn't have this feel.

[Emprise du Lion]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

University students might be a factor for all three.

They're all relatively small central cities with around 300K people, and all are home to substantial universities within city limits.

Total undergrad students of major universities:

Cincinnati (U.Cincinnati, Xavier): 35K
Pittsburgh (Carnegie-Mellon, Pitt, Duquense, Chatham): 34K
St. Louis (WashU, SLU, UMSL, Maryville): 33K

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

These cities are dirt cheap. Many people live alone, without roommates, because you don't need roommates to help pay the rent or mortgage.

Speaking as someone on the ground in St. Louis, I would say the city's 2.01 person household size is due to a mix of students, young professionals, and families moving to the suburbs. Of the six largest counties (I'm counting the city as a de facto county) in the metro area, the city ranks dead last in terms of average household size, but third in the overall number of households.

In terms of the different parts of the city, north city is continuing to see black flight for economic, safety, and educational concerns. South city has primarily stabilized, but, similarly to north city, many young couples still pack up and move to the suburbs once they start having kids for better schools and safety as well. That leaves the central corridor, which has been booming here for years in terms of development and added amenities and apartments, and its focus is almost exclusively on young professionals, grad students, undergraduate students, etc. with those developments.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Docere

Interesting group at the bottom (smallest household sizes): St. Louis, Seattle, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh.

Seattle is by far the most apartment-oriented of this group and by far the most expensive. I suspect it's the most 20-something oriented and has the fewest kids. But lots of roommate situations. Yet it's not expensive on SF's level so there aren't as many. It's a rich tapestry.

[Prahaboheme]

Originally Posted by Crawford

It's hard to imagine, but 20 years ago there was a lower income black shopping district just a few blocks from the White House:

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8973838,...QArStNCPHkA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

This stretch of F Street had hip-hop record stores, black-oriented sneaker, clothing and wig stores, and even a legacy department store on its last legs (Woodward & Lothrop). It's hard to imagine now with all the generic renovations and upscale new businesses.

There's something about DC gentrification that's extra bland compared to the other older eastern cities. I can't put my finger on it, but a gentrified block in Boston or Philly doesn't have this feel.

Oh, I find gentrification in Boston, Philly and NYC equally as bland as DC and in the case of NYC, with a seriously unique level of urbanity to be even more depressing when it’s degraded to blandness.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Prahaboheme

Oh, I find gentrification in Boston, Philly and NYC equally as bland as DC and in the case of NYC, with a seriously unique level of urbanity to be even more depressing when it’s degraded to blandness.

I think the most interesting neighborhoods in NYC are between early gentrifying and late gentrification. Williamsburg is an example of a place that was a much more interesting place during its various stages of gentrification than it is now that it is thoroughly gentrified. Nowadays Williamsburg can feel like just another tourist trap.

[Crawford]

It's totally subjective, but Williamsburg, to me, would be a perfect example of how DC gentrification just comparatively feels off. Everything gentrified in DC has that suburban Boomer-friendly Old Town Alexandria look/feel. It feels built for those who really like places like Charleston and equivalents. Zero grit. It's like the buildings/streetscape are oversanitized or something.

[Prahaboheme]

Originally Posted by Crawford

It's totally subjective, but Williamsburg, to me, would be a perfect example of how DC gentrification just comparatively feels off. Everything gentrified in DC has that suburban Boomer-friendly Old Town Alexandria look/feel. It feels built for those who really like places like Charleston and equivalents. Zero grit. It's like the buildings/streetscape are oversanitized or something.

If there is anywhere in DC worth comparing to Williamsburg (which I don't really think there is but I'll go with it), I'd say Union Market would be closest although that takes on more of a Meat Packing District vibe and unfortunately, Union Market is now getting NYC restaurants such as Pastis, so the gentrification is all but assured.

Perhaps Baltimore is the DMV's "Williamsburg" type environment, which is also seeing a minor level of gentrification in some neighborhoods but nothing to the level of the major NEC cities.

[UrbanRevival]

Originally Posted by Prahaboheme

Oh, I find gentrification in Boston, Philly and NYC equally as bland as DC and in the case of NYC, with a seriously unique level of urbanity to be even more depressing when it’s degraded to blandness.

The DC area is definitely heavy on the much less finely-grained, large-scale "New Urbanist" developments than Boston, NYC, and Philly that span entire blocks, so I would also agree that the gentrification/development character in the DC area tends to take on a particularly "corporate"-feeling flavor, if you will.

Small-scale adaptive re-use projects are particularly common in Philly (as a greater share of development is in "marginal" neighborhoods). The smaller/narrower scale of projects also definitely helps to maintain more of the historic granular character, but enhanced.

It's definitely subjective, but I don't think that characterization is unwarranted.

[iheartthed]

It's hard for me to think of Williamsburg comparisons in the U.S. I think Shoreditch in London is the closest analogy I've come across.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Crawford

There's something about DC gentrification that's extra bland compared to the other older eastern cities. I can't put my finger on it, but a gentrified block in Boston or Philly doesn't have this feel.

The problem with DC is that it doesn't have the deep-rooted native population that is hardcore into its sports teams, music, etc. About the only music you ever hear about that came out of the area was the DC hardcore punk. It doesn't have the over-arching stories that dominate pretty much every other city - i.e. famous families that funded the symphony, museums, tragically closed amusement parks, etc.

As someone noted, it also doesn't have the abandoned industrial sites, so no artists living in lofts up until 2005. Nowhere for illegal parties. That stuff still goes on in the cities with tons of abandoned brick warehouses like Kansas City and Cincinnati.

[Crawford]

DC has a longstanding black population, and go-go music came out of DC. And I've met old-school white Washingtonians that pronounce the town "Warshington". Maybe a Chesapeake accent? A little different than Baltimore. But yeah, obviously it doesn't have the same sense of rootedness one gets in, say, Philly.

I think the bigger blocks and wider avenues play a role, where redevelopments just have larger footprints and there isn't much fine-grain legacy fabric. And you don't get the artsy crowd in DC; your target audience is young transplant lawyers, consultants and politicos.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

People might point to DC being the seat of the federal government was a unique stopgap that Detroit didn't have to stabilize the population. But an even better reason for the divergence is the DC Metro. Detroit had the exact same opportunity to build a system like the DC Metro but was not able to pull it off due to political dysfunction. DC was able to do it and was fundamentally transformed by it.

I wonder to what degree, if any, the gravity of the federal government in central DC made the idea of a metro system, tying city and suburbs together, more politically palatable there vs. Detroit, where the white establishment had largely gone full L. Brooks Patterson and wanted only to sever themselves from the city and create a "new detroit" out in Oakland County.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Crawford

And you don't get the artsy crowd in DC; your target audience is young transplant lawyers, consultants and politicos.

As one of my friends commented while languishing in DC about fifteen years ago - "nobody here is just hanging out".

Los Angeles definitely still has a lot of people who aren't motivated by practical life decisions.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

I wonder to what degree, if any, the gravity of the federal government in central DC made the idea of a metro system, tying city and suburbs together, more politically palatable there vs. Detroit, where the white establishment had largely gone full L. Brooks Patterson and wanted only to sever themselves from the city and create a "new detroit" out in Oakland County.

If I recall correctly, the DC Metro project was planned as a revitalization tool, but the feds combined it with a program for large cities that lacked a rail system. SF BART, Atlanta MARTA, and DC Metro were all built from that program. I believe Seattle turned down the funding in addition to Detroit. I'm not sure what other cities were considered.

The federal government gave Detroit a check that would've basically covered the entire project. Gerald Ford sent them $600 million dollars in 1976 (~$3.2 billion in today's dollars), and they sent almost all of it back. The Detroit People Mover was the only thing to come of it.

Edit - here's additional information on the initiatives:

New Rail Systems. Since the 1973 and 1974 changes in legislation affecting transit programs, a considerable portion of UMTA's budget has been devoted to building rail systems in cities which previously did not have a rail system. Actual construction is underway in two cities and will be underway in additional cities in the near future. UMTA has made "formal sum-certain commitments" to Baltimore (for an 8.5 mile heavy-rail segment), Atlanta (for a 13.7 mile segment), and Philadelphia (for the Center City Tunnel). "Commitments in principle" have been made to Buffalo (for a 6.4 mile light-rail segment) Detroit (use undetermined), Miami (use undetermined), and to four cities for down-town people movers (Cleveland, Houston, Los Angeles, and St. Paul). In addition, UMTA anticipates some commitment to Honolulu and Los Angeles in the future. Table 4-8, prepared by UMTA, summarizes the status of UMTA commitments to September 30, 1977.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/107618.pdf

[FromSD]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

I wonder to what degree, if any, the gravity of the federal government in central DC made the idea of a metro system, tying city and suburbs together, more politically palatable there vs. Detroit, where the white establishment had largely gone full L. Brooks Patterson and wanted only to sever themselves from the city and create a "new detroit" out in Oakland County.

I've always wondered whether the federal government foot the bill for a larger portion of the DC Metro than it has for other post war rail systems. Most cities have to fund transit expansion with locally levied taxes, even if the feds sometimes kick in for particularly worthy projects. Were the feds more generous in DC because the DC Metro served federal office workers in the region? That would help to explain how DC got such an extensive metro system in its core area within a fairly short span of time.

Another key to the relative success of the DC Metro was that the District never got an extensive freeway system. The proposed routing of I-95 through DC was cancelled, and that left the Anacostia Freeway and a couple spur routes as the only limited access roads in the city. That made a rail transit system all that much more crucial, and that system was particularly compatible with the concentration of white collar jobs in central DC.

[Docere]

Some useful data on Los Angeles from the pro-sprawl hacks at Demographia, with populations of the various sections of L.A. going back to 1950.

http://demographia.com/db-la-area.pdf

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

As one of my friends commented while languishing in DC about fifteen years ago - "nobody here is just hanging out".

Los Angeles definitely still has a lot of people who aren't motivated by practical life decisions.

Right, LA, NY, Portland, New Orleans and a few others get a share of young people who tend to be dreamers, or at least without a set path. These folks have an disproportionate influence on gentrifying areas.

DC would definitely get the practical types. Huge numbers of law and policy school grads. No American metro is likely so outwardly traditionally professional-oriented.

[craigs]

Los Angeles neighborhoods are not gentrified by "dreamers." Young would-be movie stars and immigrant families seeking the American dream don't generally have the money to buy and fix up a home in an up-and-coming neighborhood here.

[Crawford]

They definitely are in NYC. Places like Bushwick, Ridgewood, etc. are very popular with young, non-professional types in creative fields. Washington Heights, Inwood, and the Grand Concourse are full of musicians and aspiring actors. Authors gravitate to fringe parts of Brownstone Brooklyn. Of course they aren't buying homes, but these are affordable renter neighborhoods, with little for sale.