FlyerTalk Forums - Moving to DC

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)

- Mid-Atlantic (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/mid-atlantic-453/)

- - Moving to DC (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/mid-atlantic/1272290-moving-dc.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by paytonc (Post 17591778)

Even the walkable Metro corridors in Arlington aren't known for their charming historic architecture. The county was largely rural until the New Deal; there are "maybe a dozen" pre-1930 houses in the entire county, per their historic preservation staffer. Still, you'll pay as much per square foot for real estate there as you will in all but the choicest bits of the District.

Here's a study that compared the relative tax burdens of the three states for different theoretical households. DC comes out ahead, although the commenters correctly point out that it assumes that people drive rather nice cars (which even "ghetto"-dwellers do around here).

If you want to take issue with the aesthetics of Arlington and other inner DC suburbs, that's fine. But do it on the merits of individual buildings and architecture, not their age. To equate "dull" with lack of historic buildings just smacks of a kind of rigid (and largely anti-urban) conservatism. There are plenty of poorly designed, low density, and ugly "historic" structures, plus they are often made with less robust materials, are full of substances now considered toxic, and are far less environmentally friendly.

Those studies are what I referred to earlier. They were made by a DC interest group to promote DC living, so take them with the proper grain of salt - they make subtle changes, including the car ownership assumptions, to tweak the findings in favor of DC.

Hm, no need to take it so personally, particularly since now you're getting into the history of my profession. Cities exist in four dimensions, and personally I like places that have a long history -- even turning down an offer to move to the west coast on largely those grounds. Sure, that's purely subjective and perhaps unusual in a society that's always racing towards the latest frontier, but "character" is always subjective. I'm hardly an anti-modern snob; I live in Southwest (by far the least "charming" part of the District by every account), I'm a member of docomomo, and have gotten nearly excommunicated by some of the classical architecture folks for daring to speak up for modernism.

I'm not exactly alone in saying that Arlington's architecture just doesn't match the high quality of the planning:

Quote:

From the canyon of stark gray high-rises in Crystal City to the monotonous beige wall of concrete that is Ballston, the county's architecture often doesn't reflect the area's national prominence.

"We need more buildings that sing," said Roberto Moranchel, the county's chief architect and urban designer. "We've got some now that barely talk."

"Look at this one," he said on a recent tour, pointing to Randolph Towers in Ballston, a beige high-rise apartment complex built in 1986. "It looks like something out of the Soviet Union." [...]

"When you put them all together, [Ballston] can be really monotonous," [county urban designer Anthony] Fusarelli said. "By having more variety, the buildings can complement each other." [...]

[architect Enrique] Norten described Arlington's master plan of Metro-oriented growth as "brilliant" but said it wasn't reflected in the quality of design of the buildings. He called the county's architecture "worrisome."

Even if you completely remove car ownership -- and I have never owned a car -- the tax difference between DC and Virginia, particularly for the many people who pay more in sales/payroll taxes than income tax, isn't as great as many would think.

BTW, besides lead paint/pipes, there's not much about 19th century buildings that's toxic. Most of the toxic chemicals we worry about were most widely used in 20th century buildings.

Also, I find it mildly hilarious that I should be accused of being "anti-urban."