1995-2015 Real Estate Explosion in Shaw – Graphically

by Prince Of Petworth February 4, 2016 at 9:45 am 14 Comments

bigger graphic here

We’ve seen it in photos and in prose – now we see it graphically.

From an email:

“Slate Properties, a locally-owned and independent real estate firm based in The District, is pleased to launch our 12-week series focusing on historical real estate data for some of the most sought-after neighborhoods in The District. Graphically, we will tell the story of average sold prices from 1995-2015 for one and two bedroom condominiums as well as two, three, and four bedroom fee-simple houses.

Today, we featured the booming SHAW neighborhood in NW”

  • Anonynon


    • shmoo

      a 20 year bubble?

  • tom12hours

    When I saw the title of this post, I was hoping that they were going to show a map of Shaw with an overlay of the new development since 1995. Maybe they could try that next.

    • +1. There was mention on the Slate page, too, about the ’68 riots affecting the area. I’d be interested to know how many properties were vacant prior to ’95 and then redeveloped versus what was newly built.

  • AnonV2

    I’m predicting this graph is going to look the same for pretty much every neighborhood east of 16th save Capitol Hill and upper 16th St. The timing of the spikes will be different (U St earlier then Eckington), but the general pattern will hold.
    Newsflash: previously undervalued neighborhoods have rapidly gentrified across the entire city.

    • Anon

      Heh, yea… I’m not sure there’s much to take away here aside from the obvious.

    • ET

      I don’t think the Hill will be that much different. I bought my house near the Safeway at Thanksgiving of 1999 for $136,000 and by March of 2000 a decent comp a few blocks away sold for $208,000. I could have found something I am sure that I could have afforded, but not my house, or not at my location, or at that price near there and that was basically 4 months.

      • Anon H St

        The poster was presumably referring to the parts of the Hill that have always been expensive (i.e., historic district close to the Capitol). But you’re right that Hill East, Kingman Park, H St. corridor, Navy Yard, etc. would have a similar trajectory (though probably somewhat less extreme than Shaw’s).

  • not an idiot

    So this is obviously a real estate company trying to move property, but I wish those in the media were a little more responsible in parsing data like this. The conclusion realtors would like you to make is “there’s no way you can loose!” Reality is much more complicated. While the increase in DC has been tremendous in the last few years a lot of that is because it was previously under-valued, which it no longer is. Another chunk is because of capital improvements. And yet another part is additional stock coming on the market with higher capital value.
    If you buy in DC today, the chances you will, without any capital improvements, see a 10% gain by even years from now is very low.

    • Anon

      It seems like there’s a key word missing from your last sentence, but to make such a blanket statement covering all of DC is rather silly. Property value appreciation will vary WIDELY by neighborhood x years from now.

    • Caleb

      The idea that you could purchase a single family home in most of the DC Metro area–outside of DC proper–for 100k in 1995 is laughable. DC was such a mess–for many reasons, I argue a lack of self governance and statehood mostly–no one wanted to live here. Now they do…so now it costs what it costs to live and buy in Montgomery/Howard/Fairfax counties.
      I question, will it become more expensive to live in Washington than it does in those other solid middle class/upper middle class communities. Will you see 1 bedroom condos selling in Shaw for 1 million dollars like you do in some major metro markets like San Francisco or New York…maybe not 1 million, but 800k?

      • Anon

        Not anytime soon. We’d need a glut of $140k starting salary-type jobs before that happens. DC does have these jobs, but they’re much more limited in numbers than all the tech/finance jobs in SF/NYC.

        • Caleb

          I would agree somewhat. The DC Metro housing market has always been relatively stable because of the steady high paying mid-level non-executive jobs.
          I think those $140k jobs do exist, but they are the more executive/senior level jobs and they tend to be occupied by those 40 plus who live out in the suburbs where they have more space and can raise a family and use the public schools if they choose: Potomac, McLean, etc.
          I think there may be opportunity though to see some of those future salaried people–current 25-35 yos–remain in the city as it wasn’t truly an idea that it could work until the last 5 years. Prior to now the population driving the housing costs are single people and DINKS….with the occasional small family. The problem that we run into is, will there be space for them in the small housing dwellings we build. The lack of 3br/4br condos in this city is troublesome. I grew up in NYC and that is far more commonplace.

    • anon

      yes, but many people aren’t buying in order to try to win the house appreciation jackpot. even with stable prices, it gives you the chance to build equity and avoid paying rent. there will be a cap on prices based on the ability to pay of the dc population, but that still doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea to buy near the cap. if you have 100,000 to invest, the correct analysis is not the stock market vs. buying a house, it’s 4-5 years of rent (maybe less if you rent a nice 2br) vs. buying a house. if you’re buying an investment property, then you can compare against the stock market.


Subscribe to our mailing list