D.C. Goes Black to White

D.C. White Influx

Starting around 1950 and continuing for decades, many major American cities saw white residents move away while African American populations rose. Concepts of white-flight and urban poverty came into being as affluence migrated outward to the suburbs. Many demographic changes over the last 15 years have begun to reverse many of these trends; urban crime rates are falling, property values are rising and people are sick of long commutes. At the forefront of these changes lies Washington D.C., a historically African American city that is now increasingly turning White.

Since the 1950's D.C. has been predominantly African American and has been known as a city of racial tension and division. For decades, affluent White Americans avoided living in the city and despite increasing numbers of African Americans, the city's population fell. I remember even as a kid in the early 1990's I was told that D.C. was not a nice place to be.

But right around the year 2000 something started to change. People actually started to want to live close to where they worked and did not want to spend hours each day in the car. Parents became sick of driving their kids everywhere and wished that things were within walking distance. Urban drug wars were finished and violent crime rates fell. Suburbanites began to move back into D.C. and property values started to rise quickly. For the first time in 50 years The District became "desirable" and Whites came back. The percentage of African Americans living in D.C. has fallen from around 70% in 1950 to just over 50% today.

Whites are moving in, but why are African Americans leaving? 

They cannot afford to stay. The income gap between White Americans and African Americans has largely held steady over time. Whites make about 70% more money than African Americans in America. A 70% decrease in income is enough to price almost anyone out of a gentrifying neighborhood. 

As you can see from the graph above, home prices skyrocketed after 2000 and in the following decade prices nearly tripled. Income certainly did not, especially not for African Americans. Nobody knows exactly what will happen over the next ten years, but we may actually start to see a full reversal. Suburbs may eventually be reserved for lower-income non-White groups while wealthy individuals mostly white will be concentrated in the urban core. 

Should Washington D.C. Build Taller?

Maintaining the D.C. Height Limit

I have spent a long time relatively split on this topic and only recently have made up my mind. When I think of D.C. I think of a beautiful medium density city that in many ways resembles European cities like Paris. But it is also easy to think that the city has nowhere left to grow, that the height restriction will prevent further development of the city. There are points to be made on both sides of the argument, but I believe that D.C. should not lift it's height limit, at least not significantly.

As you can see, many of the buildings in commercial areas of D.C. end up being exactly the same height. It is often remarked that buildings in this area feel rather wide and grand. But looking at the city, one cannot help but look up. Wouldn't building taller make the city more competitive and affordable?

No. And here are some reasons why.

D.C. Has Great Density Already

Looking at D.C. many people simply see a city without skyscrapers. A common argument is that building taller would allow the city to increase in density. But D.C. is already very dense compared to many American cities. In fact, it's density is about 10,000 people per square mile. Boston, New York and San Francisco exceed this number, but most American cities with skyscrapers do not. Building up may increase density further, but D.C. has already reached a point where public transportation and services are well spread. Too much density can lead to simple overcrowding, think Manhattan.

Room to Grow

Another argument for increasing building height in the District is that the city cannot support any more people and so housing is extremely expensive. While it is true that housing is expensive, it is because D.C. has recently become an extremely desirable place to live, not because it's population has reached some sort of limit. Right now the city has about 630,000 residents. In 1950 the number was about 800,000. There is much more housing stock available now than there was 60 years ago so the city can support at least 150,000 - 200,000 more residents without argument. Furthermore, many parts of the city are still low density and fall below the current building code. I would argue that in NW D.C. anything north of Georgetown has room to grow and anywhere north of U Street in NE D.C.

Taller Isn't Necessarily Cheaper

Many people believe that real estate prices will come down if there is a building boom. Simple supply and demand you might say; increasing the housing and commercial stock available will increase supply and so prices will fall. I have to disagree. If the entire city was torn down at once and replaced with huge buildings, there probably would be a temporary price depression. But as these new spaces filled (quickly), prices would come right back up and probably surpass current levels. There is no evidence that taller cities are cheaper. If this were true, New York and Boston would be very affordable! Many things affect prices of cities, not simply building codes.

Washington D.C. is a beautiful city. Few can argue with that. It is one of the most unique places in the United States and has a feeling that no other city can replicate. The building restriction is one of the things that really helps to define the city as it stands today. Lifting the limit could undermine the character of the city itself and change it's significance in the eyes of America.