Random Moco Pic of the Day--Diversity in the DMV

Technically, these picture aren't in Montgomery County.  I snapped them on University Boulevard just past the MOCO/PG county border.

However, they strike me as emblematic of the DMV, and two things about it in particular:
One, the DMV is incredibly diverse.  Second, that diversity is frequently on display in the suburbs rather than in the city proper.   

In this shopping mall you can get Mexican/Salvadoran food, African goods, Colombian clothes, and tax help in English or Spanish.  Just up the street (not pictured) you can also get a sari made.  Now if only there was an Irish bar and a sushi joint!

Microunits--the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

The Real Estate section in this weekend's Washington Post has an interesting article on so called microunits. 

First off, some definitions.  We're not talking about microwaves here.  Or those microplates at high end restaurants.  No, we're talking about apartments.  Really small ones.  There's no official measurement criterion, but most microunits are between 250 and 400 square feet.  For comparison's sake, the average hotel room is about 325 feet.  And, by average hotel room I don't mean that luxury suite at the Bellagio.  I'm talking about a Red Roof Inn off the interstate.   

Right now microunits are confined to the city, but there's talk of building some in inner suburbs like Crystal City.

What's good about microunits.  The main social benefit in urban areas is that microunits can be used in places where the supply of housing is less than the demand for it.  In New York City, for example, former mayor Michael Bloomberg relaxed the city's minimum floor space required for apartments (400 square feet) to allow developers to build a building full microunits on government land.  Bloomberg's reasoning?  There were 1.2 million 1 and 2 person households in the city and only 1 million apartments for them.  Essentially, you can cram more people into a building if each unit is 'micro.'

The Bad.  Microunits are not a solution to a lack of housing.  They are a quasi surrender.  Why?  Because they are designed to house singles.  And, I'm not talking about marital/significant other status here.  I'm talking literally.  Microunits are designed to house one person per unit.*  For example:  a millennial who is just starting out and hasn't accumulated a lot of junk, an elderly woman who wants to live near her daughter but have her own space, or a wealthy businessperson who has a larger house in the 'burbs but wants an 'in-city' crash pad.  There's nothing wrong with building housing for single people.  But, you shouldn't build a housing policy around niche markets.  You need to be able to provide for the full spectrum of households--singles, couples without kids, couples with kids, people who live in multi-generational families.  If you only build housing for the niche market described above you also risk turning cities into places that lack diversity of social structure.  Do we really want our cities to look like college campuses where only students and their Head Residents live?  College campuses are scary places a night.  Mixing liquor and Foucault is never advisable. 

The Ugly.  The ugly has to do with how developers and city officials legitimate microunits.  In the Washington Post article that prompted this post developers cited cost--theirs and their prospective renters--as the reason to build microunits.  Surprise surprise, it is expensive to build in the city, so your neighborhood developerMontgomery Burns needs a way to insure he still get sizable returns, and by sizable I mean 'daddy needs a new yacht, STAT!'  But never fear, those kindhearted souls aren't trying to rip you poor renters off.  No, they are offering bargain basement prices for their closetsapartments.  The renter profiled in the Washington Post article was paying the paltry sum of $2,500 a month.  That's right, you'll pay more for a micro unit than the average one-bedroom apartment in the city, but never fear, you'll get a sticker that says "I'm micro!"

* Yes, couples and even couples with a kid can live in micro units.  But, most people want a little more space and privacy once they have a kid, or grandma moves in. 

Are We Asking the Wrong Question about Where Gentrification Happens?

For the most part, when we discuss gentrification we talk about neighborhoods.  Neighborhood X got a yoga studio, or Neighborhood Y got a new Whole Foods.  If multiple neighborhoods gentrify at the same time, we might also talk about its affects on the city as a whole.  But, the city line is usually the spatial perimeter that bounds our discussion. 

But, what if we are asking the wrong question?  What if gentrification is actually a process that affects the nation as a whole, creating gentrifying cities and disinvested cities instead of  gentrifying neighborhoods and disinvested ones?  

At this point, you might be thinking--"What you talkin' about Willis?"  

Well, according to a new study by Rebecca Diamond highlighted on the Washington Post's wonkblog, that is what is happening.  The dual affects we often associate with gentrification--investment in some areas and disinvestment in others--are are national in scope.  To use a locally inspired metaphor, some cities are like Logan Circle while others are like Langley Park. 

Instead of income, however, Diamond uses education to measure gentrification on the national scale, with the key metric being college degrees.

Turns out,  people with college degrees tend to flock to places where there are lots of other college grads.  Over time, you get a sort of path dependency.  A city manages to attract college grads, which in turn attracts more college grads.  This trend also puts upward pressure on salaries, which in turn drive an increase in restaurants, museums, and other cultural fare. Streets get safer too. San Francisco, Boston, Philadelphia, and Washington DC are good examples of this trend.  In the early 1990s, for example, DC recorded over 400 murders.  Last year, it recorded 103, even though the city is much larger today. 

On the flip side, places that don't attract college grads see their relative, and in some cases real status decline.  Their wages are lower and they have fewer amenities.  Crime takes a turn for the worse.  Toledo, Detroit, and Baton Rouge are good examples.


I think Diamond's work is fascinating (if ultimately depressing).  It means Americans are becoming even more segregated (in this case along class lines).   

But, none of this means local-scale gentrification will go away anytime soon.  It is easy to look at 14th Street in DC and see the DMV as a booming metropolis full of good jobs, good eats, plentiful entertainment, and safe streets.  But, someone still has to work in the low wage jobs that clean the office buildings where those good jobs are located, bus the tables at the fancy see-and-be-seen restaurants, wash the beer glasses recycled many times over in hipster bars, and police the drunks that come out of them at night.  Low wage workers aren't teleported in for the job.  They live in the DMV too, and the growing gap between their salaries and those of the folks noshing at Le Diplomate continue to leave its mark.

If you want to see how this plays out in your own world, ask the person who cleans your office building where she lives the next time you get the chance.  Chances are she lives in a suburban, and quite likely exurban location.  By the way, when I asked this question at my workplace, the answer was Gaithersburg.          

Cyclists On My Nerves

I'm coming out of the confession closet today.  Bicyclists get on my nerves. 

What spurs my confession?  Well, it started as many of my posts do, with a Washington Post article.  This one was by John Kelly, a metro columnist.  He wrote to complain about cyclists in downtown DC riding on the sidewalks.  Being John Kelly, he was polite about it.  He wanted to know to know why cyclists are still using sidewalks after the recent construction of hundreds of miles of new bike lanes in the city.  Then, he made a reasonable request that bikers get off the sidewalks (reminding them along the way that biking on the sidewalk is illegal in downtown DC) and start behaving more politely to pedestrians.

Then, lo and behold, Courtland Milloy, the Post's den father/resident curmudgeon weighed in with his own thoughts on the city's cyclists this morning.  He wasn't as polite.  He called the city's cyclists bullies, and returned to a long-running theme of his--that bike lanes are for gentrifiers and there are far better ways for the city to spend its money than helping mostly white millennials get around the city.

I hate to pile on.  I really do.  Well, maybe I enjoy it a bit.  After the US lost to Belgium in the World Cup, I've had trouble showin' the love. But, bikers do annoy me for two reasons. 


Problem 1: The Biker 'tude.  Milloy is right--the city's (and I would add the DMV's) cyclists have as much attitude as an LA biker gang.  For me, though, the metaphor is wrong.  LA biker throw their bellies and beer swilling habits around as a way to show just how 'bad boy' they really are.  In contrast, many (but not all) of the city's cyclists think they are doing God's work.  They are saving the environment and avoiding America's obesity habit.  I'm not a fan of evangelism of any sort, so even if their version of 'God's work' is good, I'll find it annoying because they feel the need to tell me all about it.  And, hey, a Reese Cups feel like God's own manna on the way to my stomach, so there.

By the way, think I'm engaging in hyperbole?  Dan Malouf over at Greater Greater Washington recently argued that bike lanes are good not just for the safety they provide for (bikers and motorists) but also for the political point they make:  "They proclaim loudly and clearly that streets are not merely sewers for car traffic, but fully multimodal public spaces."  Yeah, that's right.  If there aren't bikes on the road, they're poo filled pathways for the unwashed masses also known as motorists.  Moderation, meet Mr. Malouf.  He could use a new friend.   


Problem 2:  Uptown bikers WON'T get on the sidewalk.  That's right, they abide by the law when they are uptown even if it means going 15 miles an hour on a busy street with a speed limit of 35mph at rush hour, in the direction of rush hour traffic.  By the way, sidewalks are a different beast uptown.  With a few exceptions, they are largely empty of pedestrians, so hopping on the sidewalk at rush hour wouldn't jeopardize pedestrians.  Seriously, why is it OK to mess up traffic flow for dozens of people at rush hour?  Their behavior also means I have to do more start/stop to get home.  Yup, worse gas mileage and more emissions all courtesy of my green fellow travelers.   

And, before anyone pipes in that I should 'try it' before making a fuss, I'll just remind folks that not everyone can bike to work.  Some live too far from work.  Others have health problems that make biking out of the question.  Other people need to be able to pick up their kids from far flung daycares, and can't fit a 3 hour commute both ways into the work/family mix.

Let me be clear though--I'm not an obese, bicycle-hatin', gas guzzling driver.  I walk along the Sligo Creek trail 2 or 3 times a week and the cyclists there are mostly model citizens.  They ring their bells when coming up behind me and other pedestrians or they say things like "on your left" so we know to move right.  Maybe because they aren't trying to prove a point, the trail's bikers are more polite.  I'll happily share the road/trail with these guys!   

Change Comes to Downtown Bethesda's Northern Tip

I went for a birthday dinner on the northern edge of downtown Bethesda this weekend.  It looks like change is coming to the more chilled out part of Bethesda proper.

Here are some pics from the corner of Woodmont Avenue and Battery Lane.  A new mixed use complex is coming to what is now a giant pit in the ground framed by some big arse, impressive cranes!   Right now, the bottom floor will be occupied by upscale grocer Harris Teeter with upper floors set aside for rental housingoverpriced apartments for millennials.   

For those not familiar with Bethesda, here's a map, and a wee bit of explanation.  The entertainment district in Bethesda is centered around Bethesda Row (which sits on Woodmont Avenue between Elm St. and Bethesda Ave.).  There's a movie theatre, a Barnes and Noble and several local and national Chains in the area. 

However, if you head north on Woodmont the chain restaurants slowly give way to more unique fare.  It is still a high end area--no doubt about it--but it feels more organic and less contrived than Bethesda Row.  Perhaps the fact that the existing apartments in the area to the northwest are older, low to mid-rise, and sometimes subsidized helps.

But, if the mixed use center set to open up at Woodmont and Battery Lane is any indication, that might change.  Higher density tends to bring more options for eating, drinking, and shopping, but it also tends to bring on the high priced generic.  And, the income level of new arrivals isn't likely to counter that trend.  If there's one thing the DMV's developers won't build these days it is affordable (or even middle class) housing.  It is a luxury or bust market.    

I'll keep taking pics so readers can follow the progress. 

MOCO Map of the Week--Average Household Size by Census Tract

MOCO Map of the Week is back after a short hiatus.  The next couple of maps will look at data on Households in Montgomery County.  Today's map shows the average household size by census tract using 2010 census data.*

The average household size in Montgomery County census tracts ranges from 1.3 to 3.99.  The average for the county as a whole is 2.7.  This is just slightly higher than the average household size for Maryland (2.6) and the DC metro area (2.64).

Two patterns stand out from the map below.  First, most tracts with high average household size are outside the beltway, in exurban areas in the county.  Second, tracts with low average household size tend to be located inside the beltway, or in between I-270 and Rockville Pike, where the majority of the county's multifamily housing is located. 

* Data are from the 2010 Census Summary File 1