Smart Growth Pet Peeves Continued--Elitism.

I want to like smart growth.  I really do.  I used to walk to work when I lived in DC, and I would love to live in such a walkable place again.  It was good for me (built in exercise) and the environment (no emissions since the car stayed parked most days). 

But, several things keep me from jumping on the smart growth bandwagon.  In my last post I complained about the transportation and infrastructure blind spots smart growth advocates have. They encourage building up at metro but ignore the fact that DC's metro system is falling apart.  Building up in this context just adds to metro's woes.  I was also put off by the cheery indifference smart growth advocates have to people who need cars and places to park them.  Some people need a car because they don't work near a metro station (even if they live by one).  In households with couples it is common to find one person who can use the metro and another who can't (and thus needs a space to park the car).  For smart growthers, though, these kinds of nuances just don't matter.  For them, we should all walk, bike, or metro to work, circumstances be damned. 

Today, as promised, I'll share my other pet peeve about smart growth.  It is inherently elitist.

Let's start with who smart growth advocates are targeting as their best potential acolytes--millennials.  It's now common wisdom that Millennials prefer city living and don't like cars.  Ok, maybe some of them like cars, but they can't actually afford to buy them, pay insurance, and cover parking costs.  Either way, they have a penchant for living in walkable neighborhoods near downtown, or next to metro hubs that will get them there. 

People who write about millennials often act as if this preference is natural, an obvious choice in the modern world.  However, not so many years ago the fashion was the exact opposite.  If you could afford to live away from the city center, and transit hubs, you did.  It was where crime, excess noise, and crowds presumably clustered. 

I bring up the fashion element here because fashionable things are often expensive.  In the context of smart growth, this means that when DC, MOCO, or Arlington County approve plans to build high-density housing near metro stops, they are usually talking about luxury apartment or condo developments.  If you don't believe me, just look at the advertisements for these apartment complexes near metro stations.

The Portico in downtown Silver Spring describes itself as "a luxury apartment community."  Rents for a 1 bedroom start at $1,702.  The View, a new 17 story building in Arlington uses similar language, describing itself as a complex of "luxury apartments a short stroll from Ballston Metro" that provides a "service focused approach to living" (because who doesn't need good servants?).  Rents for 540 square foot efficiencies start at $2,000.  One bedrooms with dens begin at $2,550.  A two bedroom--you'll need to shell out at least $4,300.

These rents don't just determine who will and won't move into new buildings.  They also affect people already living nearby, many of whom pay much lower rents.  These people are often forced out as landlords raise rents to compete for a share of the luxury market. 

How do smart growth advocates respond to the fact that building up, around transit hubs has resulted in high end development and displacement?  Many advocates have little to say about the trend.  For them higher density and fewer cars on the roads is what matters.  Others concede the lopsided nature of smart development, but think a few units set aside for low income residents will suffice.

Neither answer is satisfactory.  The first suggests that smart growth is not (and perhaps never was) about getting all of us out of our cars.  Rather, it is about selling a particular lifestyle to professionals in the millennial generation and beyond.  What happens to people who aren't professional doesn't seem to matter, even though many of them are forced to move further away from metros and rely on cars to get to work.

The second answer--to provide a few set asides to solve the problem--is akin to plugging a dam leak with a wad of gum.  It is insufficient to the task at hand.

So, the next time someone tells me I should get out of my car and walk to work, I'm going to ask them when my check arrives.  If I'm going to live with hubby, baby boy, and dog in The View, I'm going to need some help.

Next up:  Bonus Smart Growth Pet Peeve--it's all about the 1-bedroom. 

Renting in the District, Gangnam Style

I feel sorry for Emmy, a British Bulldog profiled in a Washington Post article yesterday about the competition for renters among DC's new luxury apartment complexes.  

Emmy's job is to bounce between the apartments of millennials who want a bit of fur to pat after a hard day.  That's right, tenants "will be able to pick her up in the lobby, take her upstairs to their apartment or for a walk, and return her as they would a library book, a DVD or bowling shoes."

Emmy's place of bondageemployment is 2M, a new apartment complex developed by the William C. Smith & C0.

Yup, this is what luxury looks like when its marketed to millennials.  Age-appropriate symbols of luxury.  Your kitchen will have granite counter-tops and stainless steel appliances.  You'll have cupcakes delivered on your birthday (from Georgetown Cupcakes of course because you could also end up on TV).  And, the concierge will drop off your dry-cleaning while you're out hustling for a date with your wing-lady Emmy in tow.      

Emmy's just the latest feature designed to make an apartment building--in this case 2M--stand out in the sea of granite counter-tops, rooftop decks, and cupcakes that has become the new DC.

What does all of this say about the DMV as a whole?

First, the District is becoming an attractive place for the wealthy to live.  This wasn't the case even 15 years ago.  1-bedroom apartments at one of the new luxury properties profiled in the Post article, for example, ranged from "$1,786 to $2,347."  The range was even higher for 2-bedroom apartments--"$2,315 to $3,145."  That's right, some people are paying more than 3k a month for a two bedroom apartment. 

But, poor and working class people haven't gone away--someone still has to work those minimum wage jobs.  In fact, it's an open question whether the region is actually getting wealthier or whether the city is simply catering to the wealthy at the expense of everyone else.  And, this brings us to our second trend.  As the city gentrifies, working class and low income people who used to be able to afford to live in the city are now heading to the 'burbs.

Of course anyone who's tried to buy or rent in the close-in suburbs knows that rents aren't much of a bargain there either.  So, poor and working class people frequently settle outside the beltway, or even further afield, in the exurbs (think Gaithersburg in MOCO).

A new distribution of wealth and poverty is emerging in the DMV.  We'll keep tracking it here, and hoping Emmy finds a real owner.