Is it just me or is Washington DC extremely underrated as a city?

[ChrisLA]

https://youtube.com/watch?v=_3r72o_f...5_1wnPojSCyZVG

Pretty much the only thing I knew about DC was Rock Creek Park growing up back in the day. When I finally visited the city as an adult I was curious to drive past the park.

[jbermingham123]

Originally Posted by Crawford

While I agree there's much more to DC than Type A professional preps, no other first tier U.S. city fits this stereotype better than DC. Nowhere comes close, not even Boston.

And it isn't a white thing. DC is prep-leaning, regardless of ethnic background. Very bougie, affluent-leaning AA population. And rather Southern. The only Big 6 city where you get the SEC crowd, the heavy representation from southern frats (black and white), the 20-somethings dressing up for college football games and the like. It's really a NE Corridor/Southern mashup, an old eastern city and a Sunbelt city in one.

This is the best description of DC imo

My impression of DC every time ive been there is that it is quite culturally homogeneous. And i dont go to the fancy places or anything like that. And Im talking about the neighborhoods too (which i love very much), not just downtown.

Government and gov-adjacent activities are The Thing. I have a couple good friends from DC (who have both left) and they'll be the first to tell you that anyone who isnt part of The Thing, or aspiring to be, or reporting on it, gets out. There is no reason to stay when NY and Philly, and even Atlanta, are relatively close, and have so much more going on in arts, finance, tech (assuming you are not interested in military/defense/intel), etc.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by The North One

I don't think so. And there's nothing really European about it.

The National Gallery does have a pretty incredible collection of European art, including the only Leonardo da Vinci painting in the United States:
https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-o...age.50724.html

But therein lies DC's problem...it just has stuff. There was no epic civic fight for or against its subway...it just got it for free, and without all of the craziness that afflicted Los Angeles and every other city that tried to build one.

There is also no sense of loss in the way that exists in Cleveland, Detroit, etc., where lots of huge stuff was lost due to urban decay. It's not like the US Capitol Building ever went vacant like the train station in Detroit. Its Union Station has always been active...there was no big loss there like the destruction of NYC's Penn Station or the partial-saving of Cincinnati's Union Terminal.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

But therein lies DC's problem...it just has stuff. There was no epic civic fight for or against its subway...it just got it for free, and without all of the craziness that afflicted Los Angeles and every other city that tried to build one.

How is that a negative? More of our cities should be like that. We're the only country that has developed culture with a knee-jerk defensive posture to building subway systems. Cities in other countries would gleefully welcome subway systems.

[Crawford]

I know the game was kinda rigged, but DC's Metro is arguably the biggest U.S. urban planning success of the last few generations.

For U.S. standards, ridership is outstanding. And the TOD development has been incredible. The stations are monumental. It transformed the region.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

How is that a negative? More of our cities should be like that. We're the only country that has developed culture with a knee-jerk defensive posture to building subway systems. Cities in other countries would gleefully welcome subway systems.

I'm always amazed when you see a transit project in another country, and all the national political leaders show up for the opening. It's a big freaking deal and reflects national priorities.

You had the Queen present when the Jubilee line opened in the UK, the French PM is always present whenever a major rail extension opens, German Chancellor is around when DB completes a project, etc.

Here you'll be lucky to get the mayor and governor and only if they aren't squabbling. No mention in Congress or the White House. No way is Biden showing up to the Phase II opening of the Second Ave. Subway. And that's the party not actively attempting to throttle transit. Half the politicians want to kill any non-auto mobility.

[edale]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

How is that a negative? More of our cities should be like that. We're the only country that has developed culture with a knee-jerk defensive posture to building subway systems. Cities in other countries would gleefully welcome subway systems.

I don't think it's a negative, but I think it speaks to the point others have made about DC not having much of a local culture. Among the white population at least, it's a pretty transient city and people don't have a strong sense of ownership of the city like you see in other places. I think he's claiming that no one really fought for or against the subway, because most people don't really feel invested in the city.

[edale]

Originally Posted by Segun

DC's Black population, I believe, is 4th after NYC, Atlanta and Chicago.

What I know about DC culture-wise is from Gogo music (not the same as skimp-ly clothed white women in 60s LA, it's a very African influenced homegrown sound), Funk Music, Wayne Perry, Mumbo Sauce, Doin Da Butt, and a never-ending beef with Baltimoreans. + Wale and Oddisee. Every time I've been, the Black people always seem to have a distinct slang and style of dress. I have to dig up an old picture I took where it looked like George Clinton was walking in front of a group of colorful rowhouses. It seems like a place full of colorful characters. It reminds me of the Black scene in the Bay Area. Chocolate City.

Also, the prominence of West Africans seems to be greater than any other city in the US. I haven't been to Houston in a while, so maybe my perception is wrong.

Yes, DC's Black community has a unique and discernible local flavor, but I don't think it really crosses over to the white/other population there. I don't think white people in Dupont Circle are listening to gogo music and putting mumbo sauce on their wings. White people discovered Ben's Chili Bowl and acted like it was some great cultural institution, and when I went there it was literally a run of the mill diner with non-descript food that you could get anywhere in the US Wale and Oddissee aren't exactly household names, and for a city with such a large and historical Black population, it's kind of odd that there aren't more and better known people in entertainment who claim DC.

Black communities across the country have their own local culture and slang, but that rarely translates to the broader culture. I wouldn't say soul food is part of LA's culture just because there's a cluster of soul food restaurants around Crenshaw. Taco trucks and sidewalk vendors are part of LA culture though because they're everywhere, and people across the city, including all different races eat at them. Same with chili spots in Cincinnati-- they're in Black, white, rich, poor neighborhoods and everyone eats it. Hard to think of any such thing for DC. I think that's the type of thing people are getting at with the 'no local culture' claims.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by edale

I don't think it's a negative, but I think it speaks to the point others have made about DC not having much of a local culture. Among the white population at least, it's a pretty transient city and people don't have a strong sense of ownership of the city like you see in other places. I think he's claiming that no one really fought for or against the subway, because most people don't really feel invested in the city.

DC does have a local culture and strong local identities. One of those identities is heavily African American, the other is a professional class culture that is dominated by the white affluent (but not exclusively white).

But I don't see how DC is much different from NYC in that regard. Any growing city will be full of newcomers by definition (especially Los Angeles!). Stagnant and declining cities are dominated by people that have been around forever. NYC is exciting precisely because it continually attracts people from across the globe.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by edale

Wale and Oddissee aren't exactly household names, and for a city with such a large and historical Black population, it's kind of odd that there aren't more and better known people in entertainment who claim DC.

Langston Hughes
Marvin Gaye
Duke Ellington
Dave Chappelle
Chuck Brown

all come to mind... there's gotta be many more

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by edale

White people discovered Ben's Chili Bowl and acted like it was some great cultural institution, and when I went there it was literally a run of the mill diner with non-descript food that you could get anywhere in the US

Ben's Chili Bowl is basically the same food as every Coney Island diner in Metro Detroit, except black-owned, twice the price, and lines out the door. Nice people, but never got the fame.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

But I don't see how DC is much different from NYC in that regard. Any growing city will be full of newcomers by definition (especially Los Angeles!). Stagnant and declining cities are dominated by people that have been around forever. NYC is exciting precisely because it continually attracts people from across the globe.

NYC has a sense of rootedness. There's a weird block near Gowanus that's still Sicilian, with generations living in the same place for 100 years. There are corners of the tri-state that are just odd throwbacks. Philly also has this in spades. Even Boston, which has tons of eds & meds fueled transiency, has this. Visit Dorchester, or Jamaica Plain. Even Charlestown still has Irish old-timers.

DC doesn't have rent control, or white ethnic enclaves, or in-town immigrant neighborhoods, or much of a population with longstanding roots, excepting the AA community.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by edale

I don't think it's a negative, but I think it speaks to the point others have made about DC not having much of a local culture. Among the white population at least, it's a pretty transient city and people don't have a strong sense of ownership of the city like you see in other places. I think he's claiming that no one really fought for or against the subway, because most people don't really feel invested in the city.

No one fought against the metro because it was a done & paid for deal. No scrounging up the funds nor competing with other cities in the state for funding was necessary. The decision was made to do it and it was done.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Crawford

DC doesn't have rent control, or white ethnic enclaves, or in-town immigrant neighborhoods, or much of a population with longstanding roots, excepting the AA community.

DC does have a Latino community around Columbia Heights and points north. That said, it does seem like it's less prominent than 10-20 years ago due to gentrification.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

But I don't see how DC is much different from NYC in that regard. Any growing city will be full of newcomers by definition (especially Los Angeles!). Stagnant and declining cities are dominated by people that have been around forever. NYC is exciting precisely because it continually attracts people from across the globe.

The ideal is probably a balance between multi-generational old-timers to root a city and newcomers to keep it fresh.

The argument some seem to be making here is that DC has swung too far to the "newcomer" side of the spectrum, to the city's detriment. I don't know DC well at all, so i won't speak to the veracity of that argument.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

The ideal is probably a balance of multi-generational old-timers to root a city and newcomers to keep it fresh.

The argument some seem to be making here is that DC has swung too far to the "newcomer" side of the spectrum, to the city's detriment. I don't know DC well at all, so i won't speak to the veracity of that argument.

Yeah, I think this gets at the issue people seem to have with DC.

It's not that they're aren't multi-generational old-timer families residing in DC. They're absolutely are... much of this categeory being comprised of the black population and to a much smaller extent, the upper class white population. The white middle class is what is largely visible to, and what therfore tends to define a city's culture, to many people on here (and to white America in general). And when that white middle class demographic is constantly being refreshed with the next wave of recent grad/govt/NGO/nonprofit org/contractor/etc population, well, people tend to look at that and claim that it's nothing but newcomers. This is especially the case since the massive influx of private govt contractor jobs that occurred in the 80s, when the Reagan admin expanded the size of the federal govt economy.

[UrbanRevival]

Originally Posted by pj3000

No one fought against the metro because it was a done & paid for deal. No scrounging up the funds nor competing with other cities in the state for funding was necessary. The decision was made to do it and it was done.

Exactly. And that's to be expected in capital city of a world superpower.

But I agree with the notion that because DC can have such advanced infrastructure and top-notch institutions without much blood, sweat, and tears, the denizens of the region are uniquely buffered against any sense of economic hardship, in a way that far-too-often comes off extremely oblivious, sheltered, or worse--arrogant--towards how the rest of the US is forced to operate.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

NYC has a sense of rootedness. There's a weird block near Gowanus that's still Sicilian, with generations living in the same place for 100 years. There are corners of the tri-state that are just odd throwbacks. Philly also has this in spades. Even Boston, which has tons of eds & meds fueled transiency, has this. Visit Dorchester, or Jamaica Plain. Even Charlestown still has Irish old-timers.

DC doesn't have rent control, or white ethnic enclaves, or in-town immigrant neighborhoods, or much of a population with longstanding roots, excepting the AA community.

I'm guessing the average age in that area is about 80 and it will almost certainly have changed over in a decade. It's pretty rare for neighborhoods in NYC to be dominated by a particular ethnic group for much more than a generation. It's also extremely rare for native New Yorkers to have roots that go back more than one generation in the city.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Bikemike

Yes, DC lacks a localized grassroots identity, presumably because so much of its economy consists of government contractors and transplants who move there to work for them. I've never viewed DC as a creative or inspiring city, which is for me, the majority of why cities are interesting.

As a Bay Area resident though, I will say I envy DCs contemporaneous implementation of Metro. Whereas BART is basically a fully a suburban commuter system, DC's metro can actually be called a truly hybrid S-Bahn type system where multiple lines converge within the city boundaries from all directions, covering a vast swath of DC proper along the way. This gives locals a truly rapid-transit means of making cross-town trips

BART on the other hand, barely covers SF proper, leaving us with a glorified bus-system-on-rails (MUNI) for getting around. It's wonder every big company seems to have a private bus here

I used to take those busses to work; they were free, more convenient pick up spots, you could do work on them (company wifi), no general public allowed and they dropped you off out front of the building.

[Prahaboheme]

Originally Posted by JManc

I used to take those busses to work; they were free, more convenient pick up spots, you could do work on them (company wifi), no general public allowed and they dropped you off out front of the building.

That is a perk that most people don’t have the benefit of utilizing.
“No public allowed” is not mass transit.