Why the hell is D.C. still kinda boring then?

9/25/07 12:47PM EST

I agree with Matt here. At least in theory. But I cannot possibly fathom why D.C. lacks the number of book stores, record stores, coffee shops, night clubs, 24-hour restaurants, etc., etc. that you'd expect based on it's relatively large population of wealthy, single young people. I love my D.C., but I've also found that San Francisco, Seattle, Philadelphia, New York City, Boston, and Chicago all have way, way more urban perks than Washington does. It's such a stark difference that I'm starting to believe my peers (and even some of my friends) are allergic to the upshots of yuppiness.

Comments

How's this for some 'smart' analysis?

DC is like all other political capitol cities, big and small. The resident population of the city can be divided into two chunks: those fairly directly connected with the functions of the government of the entity for which the capitol serves; and those who 'just happen' to live there, and their lives, working and private, are mostly disconnected from governing functions.

Among those disconnected from governance, there isn't a dominating reason for living there (except perhaps for the very loosely connectioned to government busineses that have grown up in the area - like high-tech - but don't necessarily directly serve the governing function). Whether this part of the city is mostly wealthy in its urban core or mostly poor is an accident of history, and it changes over time. A city composed entirely of these kind of folks should be like any other city of similar size, but it probably rarely is. It is submerged in 'otherness'. There is no there, there, and it won't be considered a lively place to live.

Now, on to the government-related part of the metro city area. The best analogue is a one-company town, except that 'product' production and profit-making isn't the center of the working universe. Businesses aren't subject to the 'in-power' and out-of-power' seesaw that politics offer (with CEO changes regularly scheduled, officers and directors coming and going on a related schedule to the CEO, etc.) Government-associated people who are residing in this government city can then be divided into the 'permanents' and 'non-permanents' - where permanent means multi-political cycles, not forever. They can also be divided into worker bees and principals (of one kind or another). Add to this mix an absolutely astounding number of lawyers and law clerks. What do you get?

Dullsville. How can people expect excitement and diversity from this hobo stew? Political capitol cities have always been thus, regardless of circumstances. The exceptions prove the rule: Rome, Paris, London, and Berlin. Why are they exceptions? There is some there, there. The local 'permanents' vastly outnumber the 'politicals', whom they ignore.

If DC has one bar, one restaurant, and one coffee shop with interesting people, you should feel lucky indeed. DC is not Paris.

Posted by: JimPortlandOR on September 25, 2007 02:39 PM

The population density of DC is also significantly lower than that of all of those other cities, except for Seattle. Not sure what's up with them.

Posted by: Matt F on September 25, 2007 03:09 PM

Jim: That used to be what I told myself. But I don't think the D.C. as Sacramento or D.C.-industry-town-where-industry-happens-to-be-U.S.-government explanation really fits. After all the presence of the government fills D.C. with hordes of rich 20-30 year olds working in government itself or else non-profits, media, lobbies, tourism, etc. to a degree that, say, Sacramento could never dream of. It seems to me to be demographically much similar to an uber-college town like Boston or a college+tech town like Seattle than to Sacramento, but then those two cities have all the fun things I think D.C. is missing.

Matt: Despite the deceptive difference in skyline size, Philly is quite a bit less dense than D.C. Aside from that, for NY, I'd say what you're saying is true. Maybe Chicago. But the density difference between Boston and D.C. is I thinkd--for this case--negligible.

Still... I think the explanation for this is actually a patchwork of ideas that I'm slowly coagulating and may or may not post about later.

Posted by: Brian on September 25, 2007 05:51 PM

Brian, you're wrong about the density of D.C vs. Philadelphia. Philadelphia's population density is 10,852 per square mile (closer to 20,000 in the center) while the density in D.C is 9,070 per square mile.

Posted by: Chris on September 26, 2007 10:14 AM

Brian, but half of those young people are registered Republicans... and they are largely not much good at fun...

Posted by: Meh on September 26, 2007 11:08 AM

Huh... I guess you're right Chris. I really thought I knew that one! :0

Posted by: Brian on September 26, 2007 01:23 PM

Still no vibrant urban core. Height restrictions and the inevitable scarity of affordable Class A commercial office space have encouraged businesses that might otherwise be inclined to locate in the city out to the suburbs, and even beyond into ex-urban hells like Loudoun and Charles counties. Long workdays bracketed by exhausting commutes back and forth to these outer suburbs. Rise of faux town centers in otherwise indistinguishable places like Reston, Ballston, Rockville, Bethesda, and Silver Spring serve to pull people out of the city at night and encourage them to stay out on the weekends. Disproportionate representation of current and ex-military in the metropolitan area who still hear Taps playing in their heads every night at 9:30 pm. Downtown business base of government, accounting/auditing, lobbying, trade association, and national and international law firms not known for attracting the, shall we say, bohemian demographic that demands your "urban perks". Lingering perceptions that the District still annually vies with Detroit for the title of Murder Capital of the United States. Georgetown, an area that might otherwise attract your "wealthy, single, young people", is limited by the absence of Metro service, the surrounding neighborhood's well-known and powerfully expressed aversion to noise, fun and other signs of life, and the sense that the whole place stopped being cool about 40 years ago. That ridiculous "Capital of the Free World" ethos that demands long hours at the department/agency/bureau/institute/office in the service of freedom just isn't conducive to lots of down time.

I am sure there are others

Posted by: John on September 26, 2007 01:37 PM

Pliticos are seldom interesting people. republican politicos are slightly more interesting because of their criminal backgrounds, but after awhile sex-crazed thugs get boring too.

Posted by: John Emerson on September 29, 2007 03:08 PM

thankS..see you..

Posted by: çet on May 4, 2009 12:37 PM

thanks..very good..

Posted by: çet on May 5, 2009 09:28 AM

Thanks a lot.

Posted by: söve on May 18, 2009 05:55 AM

penis büyütücü

Posted by: penis büyütücü on May 27, 2009 07:46 AM

Everything is very open and very clear explanation of issues. was truly information. Your website is very useful. Thanks for sharing.

Posted by: neon on August 18, 2009 01:10 PM