Check out ...[url href=http://www.DCDreamLofts.com]www.DCDreamLofts.com[/url]

There are a good amount of pictures in the 'Galleries' section. Once the weather gets a little warmer, I will add a few hundred more pictures.

Nothing less than $250k, with the average on these properties at $350-400k. Now call me a little bit cynical, maybe even jealous, but who's buying these places? I just can't fathom this much cash being bandied about on some trendy loftspaces. Head out to Upper Marlboro or even far, far Northern Virginia and pick up a few acres for that price, along with some horses and your own forest.

I came to DC to (naively, it appears) help make a difference in the world. For that, I passed on a $100k+/year computer consulting gig to make chump (and I mean CHUMP) change at a neighborhood development non-profit, and also work at a an outfit that sees to it our area's water-quality is acceptable for drinking and recreation.

Then you see a lot of really talented, upwardly mobile young people priced out of these neighborhoods in favor of homogenous yups that just relocated to take advantage of the perks of city living. Not saying I don't appreciate the influx of new blood, but so, so many native Washingtonians, even transplants from New York are leaving for more inexpensive pastures. Even Manhattan would be a better deal right now.

We also have to ask what ecological-concessions are being made during the construction of these buildings? Very little, I'm sure, which is sad because you could presumably add a price premium for the amenity provided on these half-million $ lofts. I must say though, that these are nothing like the real lofts you can still purchase affordably in places like Richmond or (god-forbid) Petersburg, sections of Norfolk even.

This is heresy, but what can you do but sit back and watch nice buildings pop-up, a Mini-cooper in every driveway, and a loss of neighborhood character in deference to increasing the tax base? Once the stadium comes, it's curtains for DC. Maybe I'll have scrounged enough to afford a 700sf condo in Hyattsville.

The lofts are expensive because people want to live there and there isn't a ton of space in downtown DC, and Upper Marlboro is cheap b/c it's far from jobs and there's a lot of it. A loft in Petersburg isn't a real attractive alternative if you work in DC.

I certainly get the sense you like living in downtown DC. Well other folks like it too, including those that didn't choose a path where they make $CHUMP. It's great that you chose something you find worthwhile over making the big $K, but you must have realized that that would mean not being able to buy the same things (like lofts/property, etc.) as people who chose another path.

It's just very interesting to see these developments, indeed many of the trends catering to young hipsters and aging baby boomers. I'm 28, so that places me firmly in the hipster age-bracket. I'm on many sides of this issue...both as an upstart developer, former resident of these gentrified neighborhoods, and someone looking for good design in an affordable package. Of course that doesnt cater to elitist attitudes. I appreciate the change though; an influx of new blood and ideas is good. But please, PLEASE don't be trendy for trendiness sake.

The new Toyota FJ is a great example; a half-done modern take on the classic FJ40 Land Cruiser reputation. Here's a work/recreation vehicle that built Toyota's reputation across the entire globe-indeed carried product line for the better part of 40 years-only to reintroduced as a gussied-up H2-fighter with no real off-road prowess and catering to a group of wannabee rough-riders. It's all marketing, but it's also disrespectful to the original designers, owners across the globe, and the new kids buying one as a toy. I see a corollary in the DC real estate scene. We're losing our sense of heritage, just to make a buck.

Perhaps I sound a bit jaded, which I am. Simply because I value authenticity above all else. When you read stories like the one that appeared in the post Saturday (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21557-2005Feb13.html), it is very disheartening. I'm well-acquainted with Douglas Jemal; he's a real stand up guy and he's worked with us on projects in the past. These types of efforts are great for this community at the same time they'll be detrimental because most of those lifelong residents will be forced out by higher property taxes. Real estate is rarely a friendly, holistic process. The folk moving in have no historical connection to place; it simply becomes a cool place to live and this is troubling.

Lots of folks say ok, sure. who cares? and that seems to be the pervasive attitude. Old Town Anacostia will become a caricature of itself, another Adams Morgan if developers get their way.
Time marches on, so I should just shut up and move to the country while I can still afford it.

(Since everything is subjective, here's disclosure on my perspective: I'm a married professional with one kid and one on the way. We've lived in Mt. Pleasant for 5 years. We're probably moving out to the 'burbs as soon as we can find a small not-too-horrible ranch or split, for the same reasons most folks do: good schools, a yard, a neighborhood pool, etc. We've benefitted enormously from rising property values. We like the businesses on Mt. Pleasant St, and frequent them, but would love to see some more upscale stuff there.)

It seems like there are two basic phenomena that are going on in places like U-street and Columbia Heights:

1: The places are Hip (probably more true of U-street): I think this is much weaker effect here in DC than it is in New York, where there is an established cycle of artists moving into a low-rent area (SoHo in the seventies, Dumbo in the late 90s, Redhook now?) and by their presence making it a cool place to live. This brings in the wanna-bes, which drives up the rents, so the next generation of artists has to pick a new place. One thing I don't know, and would be interested to find out, is whether the pioneers who first moved in and made it hip then stay, or whether they get displaced. Do the same pioneers continue to settle new neighborhoods, or are there successive waves? (I'm sure the answer is that it's a mix...)

2: They are simply better places to live than they were 10 years ago: Crime is down in DC. The financial situation of the city is much better. Garbage gets picked up, snow gets plowed, etc. And, the Metro has come to both places. Now that the negatives of DC aren't as bad as they used to be, the benefits - like being close to work and nightlife - are drawing folks to live in the city.

There is also a feedback effect. As more and more middle-class people live in areas like U-Street and Columbia heights, middle-class folks feel more comfortable there. Race obviously plays a role in this as well, especially in DC. And as the number of middle-class people rises, there are also more services (e.g., Whole Foods, Starbucks) targeted to them. And the housing stock gets upgraded, and more housing gets built.

Is this a good thing? I don't know. On the plus side, poorer residents of these areas benefit from increased services. If they are owners, they can cash in and move to a less expensive area. Tax revenue for the city rise, as more people making more money pay city income taxes, and the property tax base increases. On the down side, long-time residents get priced out of their neighborhoods, through rent increases, property tax increases, or buildings going condo. This can disrupt their lives and sever valuable social and economic connections. Some might add that the neighborhoods lose character or authenticity. I don't know what to make of that. If it has to do with the disruption of locals lives and social and economic connections, I'm sympathetic. If it has to do with the feel of a neighborhood, I think it runs the risk of putting aesthetics above of the realities of people's lives.