It’s a crisis that there are no SFHs in commuting distance to jobs with good schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are less pricey homes that feed into schools that are good for middle class families, but people see the low GS score and think it’s beneath them. We live in a diverse suburb within walking and biking distance to stores, restaurants, and a cute downtown. We have schools that are 9/10 for non low income families, but 1/10 for low income families. DCUM always acts like it must be hellish to live here, but it’s actually quite lovely. There are plenty of jobs close by and no commute to DC needed.

Low GS scores to me say (at least around here) they have good kids with a LOT of behavior problems. Those types of kids put a tax on the school - and I’ve worked super hard to make sure and track behavior above anything else. If you do that you eventually land in a Catholic elementary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Uh, living in a SFH with good public schools in a Tier 1 city is a luxury good. What's so hard to understand about that? Heck, owning in a SFH in a Tier 1 city is a luxury good in most areas.

This. Its a problem everywhere.

Why is this problem? What right does someone have to live in a walk up on the upper east side? Or a SFH in Beverly Hills? Or a SFH in Palo Alto or San Francisco? Or a SFH or equivalent in London or Paris? The sense of entitlement here is pretty amazing.

Because cities should be attractive places for people to live. All people, not just ultra wealthy people.

Many cities have attractive places for people live from the poorest to the ultra wealthy. There are people who think they should have the same housing location as the ultra wealthy.

Ok, but many of us do NOT want the same housing location as the ultra wealthy. I want to live in a condo or small duplex/row house that is convenient to public transportation and is family friendly. I am fine with small homes. Fine with apartments. But I'd like something that doesn't make me car dependent (this is just yet another expense) and where I have some access to public green space like parks and playgrounds (since I don't expect a house with a hard, having some kind of common green space is important). I do not need a bunch of high price restaurants and bars nearby, but having some amenities like a decent grocery store and pharmacy, a library, a few places to eat or drink, and a school within walking, biking, or a short bus ride away would be great.

Like basically I want to live like a middle class European person in a city. I don't need the best schools in the city, I don't need lots of high end dining and retail, I don't expect a huge house our a yard or a garage. I'd like to live somewhere that allows me to walk or take public transportation most of the time, and where I can comfortably have a child or maybe two.

This is unbelievably hard to find in DC. We have sort of found it (we live in a 2 bedroom condo) but the surrounding neighborhood is kind of split between super upscale gentrification (essentially pricing us out of a lot of the businesses near our home because they are geared at people who are making 250k+ and we don't, plus we already had to stretch a bit to buy our condo) and also just poverty.

We'd move to the suburbs (I have nothing against suburbs and don't need the "cool" cache of the city at all, I could care less) but most suburbs would require us to have not only one but two cars and have insufficient connectivity via public transportation. And the suburbs that come closest to this are often as expensive, if not more so, than where we currently live. With the added cost of another vehicle and the fact that most suburbs would force us into more square footage (making the cost savings of being further out a bit of a wash because we'd just wind up spending the same amount, but on a bigger house with a yard because it's hard to find 1000 sq ft condos in the burbs that are family friendly).

Like I'm just really tired of the claim that everyone wants a giant, expensive house in the "best" part of town. I don't. What I actually do want is scalable and would serve the needs of an enormous number of families in this city, especially people making somewhere between 60k and 150k. But instead we keep just building housing for wealthy people and then telling middle class families "move further out" which just increases or transportation costs and decreases our quality of life.

Build a city for middle class people. Rich people will carve out niches for themselves in very desirable areas, which is fine. The city will need to find ways to support, house, and help people in poverty. But if you build a city for middle class folks, you get a city of teachers, construction workers, mid-level managers, young professionals, fire fighters, small business owners, etc. What a great place to live! Imagine how great that would be.

Ok but this does actually exist already. For example we are a one-car family a 10 minute walk from the Forest Glen metro (that’s just past Silver Spring metro). Our house is small (maybe 1500 square feet including the finished basement), but totally serviceable, and comps going for around $550K. So not cheap but not a million. We can also walk to stores and restaurants in Wheaton and even Kensington. Our kids’ schools are mid-rated in terms of GS scale but we like them. There are other spots like this clustered around the Beltway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Uh, living in a SFH with good public schools in a Tier 1 city is a luxury good. What's so hard to understand about that? Heck, owning in a SFH in a Tier 1 city is a luxury good in most areas.

This. Its a problem everywhere.

Why is this problem? What right does someone have to live in a walk up on the upper east side? Or a SFH in Beverly Hills? Or a SFH in Palo Alto or San Francisco? Or a SFH or equivalent in London or Paris? The sense of entitlement here is pretty amazing.

Because cities should be attractive places for people to live. All people, not just ultra wealthy people.

Many cities have attractive places for people live from the poorest to the ultra wealthy. There are people who think they should have the same housing location as the ultra wealthy.

Ok, but many of us do NOT want the same housing location as the ultra wealthy. I want to live in a condo or small duplex/row house that is convenient to public transportation and is family friendly. I am fine with small homes. Fine with apartments. But I'd like something that doesn't make me car dependent (this is just yet another expense) and where I have some access to public green space like parks and playgrounds (since I don't expect a house with a hard, having some kind of common green space is important). I do not need a bunch of high price restaurants and bars nearby, but having some amenities like a decent grocery store and pharmacy, a library, a few places to eat or drink, and a school within walking, biking, or a short bus ride away would be great.

Like basically I want to live like a middle class European person in a city. I don't need the best schools in the city, I don't need lots of high end dining and retail, I don't expect a huge house our a yard or a garage. I'd like to live somewhere that allows me to walk or take public transportation most of the time, and where I can comfortably have a child or maybe two.

This is unbelievably hard to find in DC. We have sort of found it (we live in a 2 bedroom condo) but the surrounding neighborhood is kind of split between super upscale gentrification (essentially pricing us out of a lot of the businesses near our home because they are geared at people who are making 250k+ and we don't, plus we already had to stretch a bit to buy our condo) and also just poverty.

We'd move to the suburbs (I have nothing against suburbs and don't need the "cool" cache of the city at all, I could care less) but most suburbs would require us to have not only one but two cars and have insufficient connectivity via public transportation. And the suburbs that come closest to this are often as expensive, if not more so, than where we currently live. With the added cost of another vehicle and the fact that most suburbs would force us into more square footage (making the cost savings of being further out a bit of a wash because we'd just wind up spending the same amount, but on a bigger house with a yard because it's hard to find 1000 sq ft condos in the burbs that are family friendly).

Like I'm just really tired of the claim that everyone wants a giant, expensive house in the "best" part of town. I don't. What I actually do want is scalable and would serve the needs of an enormous number of families in this city, especially people making somewhere between 60k and 150k. But instead we keep just building housing for wealthy people and then telling middle class families "move further out" which just increases or transportation costs and decreases our quality of life.

Build a city for middle class people. Rich people will carve out niches for themselves in very desirable areas, which is fine. The city will need to find ways to support, house, and help people in poverty. But if you build a city for middle class folks, you get a city of teachers, construction workers, mid-level managers, young professionals, fire fighters, small business owners, etc. What a great place to live! Imagine how great that would be.

Ok but this does actually exist already. For example we are a one-car family a 10 minute walk from the Forest Glen metro (that’s just past Silver Spring metro). Our house is small (maybe 1500 square feet including the finished basement), but totally serviceable, and comps going for around $550K. So not cheap but not a million. We can also walk to stores and restaurants in Wheaton and even Kensington. Our kids’ schools are mid-rated in terms of GS scale but we like them. There are other spots like this clustered around the Beltway.

No, but you're not listening. This person wants "GOOD" schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is your proposed solution?

High speed rail

Give them good coffee and good music and they will park and ride

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Uh, living in a SFH with good public schools in a Tier 1 city is a luxury good. What's so hard to understand about that? Heck, owning in a SFH in a Tier 1 city is a luxury good in most areas.

This. Its a problem everywhere.

Why is this problem? What right does someone have to live in a walk up on the upper east side? Or a SFH in Beverly Hills? Or a SFH in Palo Alto or San Francisco? Or a SFH or equivalent in London or Paris? The sense of entitlement here is pretty amazing.

Because cities should be attractive places for people to live. All people, not just ultra wealthy people.

Many cities have attractive places for people live from the poorest to the ultra wealthy. There are people who think they should have the same housing location as the ultra wealthy.

Ok, but many of us do NOT want the same housing location as the ultra wealthy. I want to live in a condo or small duplex/row house that is convenient to public transportation and is family friendly. I am fine with small homes. Fine with apartments. But I'd like something that doesn't make me car dependent (this is just yet another expense) and where I have some access to public green space like parks and playgrounds (since I don't expect a house with a hard, having some kind of common green space is important). I do not need a bunch of high price restaurants and bars nearby, but having some amenities like a decent grocery store and pharmacy, a library, a few places to eat or drink, and a school within walking, biking, or a short bus ride away would be great.

Like basically I want to live like a middle class European person in a city. I don't need the best schools in the city, I don't need lots of high end dining and retail, I don't expect a huge house our a yard or a garage. I'd like to live somewhere that allows me to walk or take public transportation most of the time, and where I can comfortably have a child or maybe two.

This is unbelievably hard to find in DC. We have sort of found it (we live in a 2 bedroom condo) but the surrounding neighborhood is kind of split between super upscale gentrification (essentially pricing us out of a lot of the businesses near our home because they are geared at people who are making 250k+ and we don't, plus we already had to stretch a bit to buy our condo) and also just poverty.

We'd move to the suburbs (I have nothing against suburbs and don't need the "cool" cache of the city at all, I could care less) but most suburbs would require us to have not only one but two cars and have insufficient connectivity via public transportation. And the suburbs that come closest to this are often as expensive, if not more so, than where we currently live. With the added cost of another vehicle and the fact that most suburbs would force us into more square footage (making the cost savings of being further out a bit of a wash because we'd just wind up spending the same amount, but on a bigger house with a yard because it's hard to find 1000 sq ft condos in the burbs that are family friendly).

Like I'm just really tired of the claim that everyone wants a giant, expensive house in the "best" part of town. I don't. What I actually do want is scalable and would serve the needs of an enormous number of families in this city, especially people making somewhere between 60k and 150k. But instead we keep just building housing for wealthy people and then telling middle class families "move further out" which just increases or transportation costs and decreases our quality of life.

Build a city for middle class people. Rich people will carve out niches for themselves in very desirable areas, which is fine. The city will need to find ways to support, house, and help people in poverty. But if you build a city for middle class folks, you get a city of teachers, construction workers, mid-level managers, young professionals, fire fighters, small business owners, etc. What a great place to live! Imagine how great that would be.

Ok but this does actually exist already. For example we are a one-car family a 10 minute walk from the Forest Glen metro (that’s just past Silver Spring metro). Our house is small (maybe 1500 square feet including the finished basement), but totally serviceable, and comps going for around $550K. So not cheap but not a million. We can also walk to stores and restaurants in Wheaton and even Kensington. Our kids’ schools are mid-rated in terms of GS scale but we like them. There are other spots like this clustered around the Beltway.

I’m the PP and Forest Glen/Wheaton/Kensington is an area we are looking at to move because of schools. We like Einstein and it’s feeders and that neighborhood feels pretty walkable.

The sticking point for us is that while it’s got transportation into the city, it is not a very easy commute for DH, whose office isn’t downtown. We have been trying to figure out if we could go that neighborhood with one car and are unsure.

Though I can also say as someone who stalks real estate there, 550k is already low for the neighborhood and soon won’t be an option. Houses listed at 550 are closing for over 600. We aren’t the only ones who think it’s a good option. Soon we’ll be priced out just like we were priced out of other neighborhoods before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Uh, living in a SFH with good public schools in a Tier 1 city is a luxury good. What's so hard to understand about that? Heck, owning in a SFH in a Tier 1 city is a luxury good in most areas.

This. Its a problem everywhere.

Why is this problem? What right does someone have to live in a walk up on the upper east side? Or a SFH in Beverly Hills? Or a SFH in Palo Alto or San Francisco? Or a SFH or equivalent in London or Paris? The sense of entitlement here is pretty amazing.

Because cities should be attractive places for people to live. All people, not just ultra wealthy people.

Many cities have attractive places for people live from the poorest to the ultra wealthy. There are people who think they should have the same housing location as the ultra wealthy.

Ok, but many of us do NOT want the same housing location as the ultra wealthy. I want to live in a condo or small duplex/row house that is convenient to public transportation and is family friendly. I am fine with small homes. Fine with apartments. But I'd like something that doesn't make me car dependent (this is just yet another expense) and where I have some access to public green space like parks and playgrounds (since I don't expect a house with a hard, having some kind of common green space is important). I do not need a bunch of high price restaurants and bars nearby, but having some amenities like a decent grocery store and pharmacy, a library, a few places to eat or drink, and a school within walking, biking, or a short bus ride away would be great.

Like basically I want to live like a middle class European person in a city. I don't need the best schools in the city, I don't need lots of high end dining and retail, I don't expect a huge house our a yard or a garage. I'd like to live somewhere that allows me to walk or take public transportation most of the time, and where I can comfortably have a child or maybe two.

This is unbelievably hard to find in DC. We have sort of found it (we live in a 2 bedroom condo) but the surrounding neighborhood is kind of split between super upscale gentrification (essentially pricing us out of a lot of the businesses near our home because they are geared at people who are making 250k+ and we don't, plus we already had to stretch a bit to buy our condo) and also just poverty.

We'd move to the suburbs (I have nothing against suburbs and don't need the "cool" cache of the city at all, I could care less) but most suburbs would require us to have not only one but two cars and have insufficient connectivity via public transportation. And the suburbs that come closest to this are often as expensive, if not more so, than where we currently live. With the added cost of another vehicle and the fact that most suburbs would force us into more square footage (making the cost savings of being further out a bit of a wash because we'd just wind up spending the same amount, but on a bigger house with a yard because it's hard to find 1000 sq ft condos in the burbs that are family friendly).

Like I'm just really tired of the claim that everyone wants a giant, expensive house in the "best" part of town. I don't. What I actually do want is scalable and would serve the needs of an enormous number of families in this city, especially people making somewhere between 60k and 150k. But instead we keep just building housing for wealthy people and then telling middle class families "move further out" which just increases or transportation costs and decreases our quality of life.

Build a city for middle class people. Rich people will carve out niches for themselves in very desirable areas, which is fine. The city will need to find ways to support, house, and help people in poverty. But if you build a city for middle class folks, you get a city of teachers, construction workers, mid-level managers, young professionals, fire fighters, small business owners, etc. What a great place to live! Imagine how great that would be.

Ok but this does actually exist already. For example we are a one-car family a 10 minute walk from the Forest Glen metro (that’s just past Silver Spring metro). Our house is small (maybe 1500 square feet including the finished basement), but totally serviceable, and comps going for around $550K. So not cheap but not a million. We can also walk to stores and restaurants in Wheaton and even Kensington. Our kids’ schools are mid-rated in terms of GS scale but we like them. There are other spots like this clustered around the Beltway.

I’m the PP and Forest Glen/Wheaton/Kensington is an area we are looking at to move because of schools. We like Einstein and it’s feeders and that neighborhood feels pretty walkable.

The sticking point for us is that while it’s got transportation into the city, it is not a very easy commute for DH, whose office isn’t downtown. We have been trying to figure out if we could go that neighborhood with one car and are unsure.

Though I can also say as someone who stalks real estate there, 550k is already low for the neighborhood and soon won’t be an option. Houses listed at 550 are closing for over 600. We aren’t the only ones who think it’s a good option. Soon we’ll be priced out just like we were priced out of other neighborhoods before.

The reason why you’re going to be stuck is that you appear unwilling to compromise on anything on your wish list. It has to be a accessible to public transportation, but apparently only in specific areas because your DHs commute will be “hard”? Where is your DHs office? You’re never going to get everything you want for 550k in this area, so you need to figure out what on your list is a want vs. a need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Uh, living in a SFH with good public schools in a Tier 1 city is a luxury good. What's so hard to understand about that? Heck, owning in a SFH in a Tier 1 city is a luxury good in most areas.

This. Its a problem everywhere.

Why is this problem? What right does someone have to live in a walk up on the upper east side? Or a SFH in Beverly Hills? Or a SFH in Palo Alto or San Francisco? Or a SFH or equivalent in London or Paris? The sense of entitlement here is pretty amazing.

Because cities should be attractive places for people to live. All people, not just ultra wealthy people.

Many cities have attractive places for people live from the poorest to the ultra wealthy. There are people who think they should have the same housing location as the ultra wealthy.

Ok, but many of us do NOT want the same housing location as the ultra wealthy. I want to live in a condo or small duplex/row house that is convenient to public transportation and is family friendly. I am fine with small homes. Fine with apartments. But I'd like something that doesn't make me car dependent (this is just yet another expense) and where I have some access to public green space like parks and playgrounds (since I don't expect a house with a hard, having some kind of common green space is important). I do not need a bunch of high price restaurants and bars nearby, but having some amenities like a decent grocery store and pharmacy, a library, a few places to eat or drink, and a school within walking, biking, or a short bus ride away would be great.

Like basically I want to live like a middle class European person in a city. I don't need the best schools in the city, I don't need lots of high end dining and retail, I don't expect a huge house our a yard or a garage. I'd like to live somewhere that allows me to walk or take public transportation most of the time, and where I can comfortably have a child or maybe two.

This is unbelievably hard to find in DC. We have sort of found it (we live in a 2 bedroom condo) but the surrounding neighborhood is kind of split between super upscale gentrification (essentially pricing us out of a lot of the businesses near our home because they are geared at people who are making 250k+ and we don't, plus we already had to stretch a bit to buy our condo) and also just poverty.

We'd move to the suburbs (I have nothing against suburbs and don't need the "cool" cache of the city at all, I could care less) but most suburbs would require us to have not only one but two cars and have insufficient connectivity via public transportation. And the suburbs that come closest to this are often as expensive, if not more so, than where we currently live. With the added cost of another vehicle and the fact that most suburbs would force us into more square footage (making the cost savings of being further out a bit of a wash because we'd just wind up spending the same amount, but on a bigger house with a yard because it's hard to find 1000 sq ft condos in the burbs that are family friendly).

Like I'm just really tired of the claim that everyone wants a giant, expensive house in the "best" part of town. I don't. What I actually do want is scalable and would serve the needs of an enormous number of families in this city, especially people making somewhere between 60k and 150k. But instead we keep just building housing for wealthy people and then telling middle class families "move further out" which just increases or transportation costs and decreases our quality of life.

Build a city for middle class people. Rich people will carve out niches for themselves in very desirable areas, which is fine. The city will need to find ways to support, house, and help people in poverty. But if you build a city for middle class folks, you get a city of teachers, construction workers, mid-level managers, young professionals, fire fighters, small business owners, etc. What a great place to live! Imagine how great that would be.

It is impossible to find middle class euro living in the us outside of certain college towns and post covid that’s also pretty much impossible also

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Uh, living in a SFH with good public schools in a Tier 1 city is a luxury good. What's so hard to understand about that? Heck, owning in a SFH in a Tier 1 city is a luxury good in most areas.

This. Its a problem everywhere.

Why is this problem? What right does someone have to live in a walk up on the upper east side? Or a SFH in Beverly Hills? Or a SFH in Palo Alto or San Francisco? Or a SFH or equivalent in London or Paris? The sense of entitlement here is pretty amazing.

Because cities should be attractive places for people to live. All people, not just ultra wealthy people.

And they are. It just means you might have to rent a SFH or live in an apartment or condo or gasp, a townhouse, especially in a Tier 1 city where land prices are at a huge premium. No one is promised a SFH. I'd love to watch the Parisian's laugh at you when you suggest this.

Parisians would be horrified to see the stock of apartments, condos, and small house rentals in this city, and horribly disappointed at the fact that so many of them are in neighborhoods that are not walkable and have no grocery stores or cafes or parks.

Forget parisians.

Any city in France would laugh at the options and living structure

Strasbourg, Toulouse, Lyon, Nice, Grenoble

Etc etc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Uh, living in a SFH with good public schools in a Tier 1 city is a luxury good. What's so hard to understand about that? Heck, owning in a SFH in a Tier 1 city is a luxury good in most areas.

This. Its a problem everywhere.

Why is this problem? What right does someone have to live in a walk up on the upper east side? Or a SFH in Beverly Hills? Or a SFH in Palo Alto or San Francisco? Or a SFH or equivalent in London or Paris? The sense of entitlement here is pretty amazing.

Because cities should be attractive places for people to live. All people, not just ultra wealthy people.

Many cities have attractive places for people live from the poorest to the ultra wealthy. There are people who think they should have the same housing location as the ultra wealthy.

Ok, but many of us do NOT want the same housing location as the ultra wealthy. I want to live in a condo or small duplex/row house that is convenient to public transportation and is family friendly. I am fine with small homes. Fine with apartments. But I'd like something that doesn't make me car dependent (this is just yet another expense) and where I have some access to public green space like parks and playgrounds (since I don't expect a house with a hard, having some kind of common green space is important). I do not need a bunch of high price restaurants and bars nearby, but having some amenities like a decent grocery store and pharmacy, a library, a few places to eat or drink, and a school within walking, biking, or a short bus ride away would be great.

Like basically I want to live like a middle class European person in a city. I don't need the best schools in the city, I don't need lots of high end dining and retail, I don't expect a huge house our a yard or a garage. I'd like to live somewhere that allows me to walk or take public transportation most of the time, and where I can comfortably have a child or maybe two.

This is unbelievably hard to find in DC. We have sort of found it (we live in a 2 bedroom condo) but the surrounding neighborhood is kind of split between super upscale gentrification (essentially pricing us out of a lot of the businesses near our home because they are geared at people who are making 250k+ and we don't, plus we already had to stretch a bit to buy our condo) and also just poverty.

We'd move to the suburbs (I have nothing against suburbs and don't need the "cool" cache of the city at all, I could care less) but most suburbs would require us to have not only one but two cars and have insufficient connectivity via public transportation. And the suburbs that come closest to this are often as expensive, if not more so, than where we currently live. With the added cost of another vehicle and the fact that most suburbs would force us into more square footage (making the cost savings of being further out a bit of a wash because we'd just wind up spending the same amount, but on a bigger house with a yard because it's hard to find 1000 sq ft condos in the burbs that are family friendly).

Like I'm just really tired of the claim that everyone wants a giant, expensive house in the "best" part of town. I don't. What I actually do want is scalable and would serve the needs of an enormous number of families in this city, especially people making somewhere between 60k and 150k. But instead we keep just building housing for wealthy people and then telling middle class families "move further out" which just increases or transportation costs and decreases our quality of life.

Build a city for middle class people. Rich people will carve out niches for themselves in very desirable areas, which is fine. The city will need to find ways to support, house, and help people in poverty. But if you build a city for middle class folks, you get a city of teachers, construction workers, mid-level managers, young professionals, fire fighters, small business owners, etc. What a great place to live! Imagine how great that would be.

There’s been a few threads touching on this recently, but the root of your problem is that the vast majority of the country has been built over the past 80-100 years to prioritize car ownership. And to avoid owning a car (or to at least be “car light”) you need money to afford. OR you have to be too poor to afford a car and willing to live near lots of bus lines (often in areas with higher crimes and poorer performing schools). Bailey’s Crossroads/Culmore comes to mind as one of those neighborhoods. Otherwise if you’re a MC person you need to get on board with how the generations before us decided we should all live.

My boomer parents cannot fathom why anyone would not be willing to commute “just a little bit farther” to have a new house. They do not understand why the “open road” is not appealing. I mean, you can have the comfort of your own car and not have to deal with public transportation or walking! That is a feature of urban planning over the past decades, not a bug.

And I hate it. I hate that it now costs too much money to tear up and redevelop what has already been built, so instead we have to do infill around places like Tyson’s, which will always be lipstick on a car dependent pig. It’s why the US by and large will never be as charming as the small towns in Europe you would love to live in.

It’s frustrating beyond belief.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Uh, living in a SFH with good public schools in a Tier 1 city is a luxury good. What's so hard to understand about that? Heck, owning in a SFH in a Tier 1 city is a luxury good in most areas.

This. Its a problem everywhere.

Why is this problem? What right does someone have to live in a walk up on the upper east side? Or a SFH in Beverly Hills? Or a SFH in Palo Alto or San Francisco? Or a SFH or equivalent in London or Paris? The sense of entitlement here is pretty amazing.

Because cities should be attractive places for people to live. All people, not just ultra wealthy people.

Many cities have attractive places for people live from the poorest to the ultra wealthy. There are people who think they should have the same housing location as the ultra wealthy.

Ok, but many of us do NOT want the same housing location as the ultra wealthy. I want to live in a condo or small duplex/row house that is convenient to public transportation and is family friendly. I am fine with small homes. Fine with apartments. But I'd like something that doesn't make me car dependent (this is just yet another expense) and where I have some access to public green space like parks and playgrounds (since I don't expect a house with a hard, having some kind of common green space is important). I do not need a bunch of high price restaurants and bars nearby, but having some amenities like a decent grocery store and pharmacy, a library, a few places to eat or drink, and a school within walking, biking, or a short bus ride away would be great.

Like basically I want to live like a middle class European person in a city. I don't need the best schools in the city, I don't need lots of high end dining and retail, I don't expect a huge house our a yard or a garage. I'd like to live somewhere that allows me to walk or take public transportation most of the time, and where I can comfortably have a child or maybe two.

This is unbelievably hard to find in DC. We have sort of found it (we live in a 2 bedroom condo) but the surrounding neighborhood is kind of split between super upscale gentrification (essentially pricing us out of a lot of the businesses near our home because they are geared at people who are making 250k+ and we don't, plus we already had to stretch a bit to buy our condo) and also just poverty.

We'd move to the suburbs (I have nothing against suburbs and don't need the "cool" cache of the city at all, I could care less) but most suburbs would require us to have not only one but two cars and have insufficient connectivity via public transportation. And the suburbs that come closest to this are often as expensive, if not more so, than where we currently live. With the added cost of another vehicle and the fact that most suburbs would force us into more square footage (making the cost savings of being further out a bit of a wash because we'd just wind up spending the same amount, but on a bigger house with a yard because it's hard to find 1000 sq ft condos in the burbs that are family friendly).

Like I'm just really tired of the claim that everyone wants a giant, expensive house in the "best" part of town. I don't. What I actually do want is scalable and would serve the needs of an enormous number of families in this city, especially people making somewhere between 60k and 150k. But instead we keep just building housing for wealthy people and then telling middle class families "move further out" which just increases or transportation costs and decreases our quality of life.

Build a city for middle class people. Rich people will carve out niches for themselves in very desirable areas, which is fine. The city will need to find ways to support, house, and help people in poverty. But if you build a city for middle class folks, you get a city of teachers, construction workers, mid-level managers, young professionals, fire fighters, small business owners, etc. What a great place to live! Imagine how great that would be.

There’s been a few threads touching on this recently, but the root of your problem is that the vast majority of the country has been built over the past 80-100 years to prioritize car ownership. And to avoid owning a car (or to at least be “car light”) you need money to afford. OR you have to be too poor to afford a car and willing to live near lots of bus lines (often in areas with higher crimes and poorer performing schools). Bailey’s Crossroads/Culmore comes to mind as one of those neighborhoods. Otherwise if you’re a MC person you need to get on board with how the generations before us decided we should all live.

My boomer parents cannot fathom why anyone would not be willing to commute “just a little bit farther” to have a new house. They do not understand why the “open road” is not appealing. I mean, you can have the comfort of your own car and not have to deal with public transportation or walking! That is a feature of urban planning over the past decades, not a bug.

And I hate it. I hate that it now costs too much money to tear up and redevelop what has already been built, so instead we have to do infill around places like Tyson’s, which will always be lipstick on a car dependent pig. It’s why the US by and large will never be as charming as the small towns in Europe you would love to live in.

This, exactly. We are living with the consequences of choices made 50-70 years ago. This is why so many younger people are just over it and choosing not to marry or have kids. The infrastructure of society makes it so hard to have a family in this country without buying into a bunch of systems that kind of suck. And if you say "hey, this system kind of sucks, what if we did something else," you get called entitled and stupid.

Even if a whole group of you says "hey, we don't like this system, we don't want to be car dependent, we don't want to live in huge houses on huge lots, we don't want to spend 2 hours a day commuting, we don't want to live so far from our neighbors, we don't want to maintain these giant lawns, etc. And we don't want to have to have two parents working demanding jobs in order to afford our big house on the big lot and the two cars required to make that functional. We want to scale the whole thing way down, live in smaller homes that are walkable and connected to public transportation, and then also have jobs that are less demanding and offer more balance." Older generations are like "that's a pipe dream, shut up, we figured out the best way to do this, how dare you challenge it."

Boomers/Gen X fashioned the world into an image they wanted, and now when we try to do the same, the boomers yell at us and call us selfish. Yet their vision of the country is going to collapse under its own weight eventually anyway, because you can't have a culture premised on dual-working parents and multiple cars and giant homes without creating a whole host of negative externalities (pollution, climate change, mental health issues, family dysfunction) that will eventually break everything apart.

Anyway, we can't have bike lanes or multi-family housing because it will make the car commute of someone living in a 4000 sq ft house in Rockville too long I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Uh, living in a SFH with good public schools in a Tier 1 city is a luxury good. What's so hard to understand about that? Heck, owning in a SFH in a Tier 1 city is a luxury good in most areas.

This. Its a problem everywhere.

Why is this problem? What right does someone have to live in a walk up on the upper east side? Or a SFH in Beverly Hills? Or a SFH in Palo Alto or San Francisco? Or a SFH or equivalent in London or Paris? The sense of entitlement here is pretty amazing.

Because cities should be attractive places for people to live. All people, not just ultra wealthy people.

Many cities have attractive places for people live from the poorest to the ultra wealthy. There are people who think they should have the same housing location as the ultra wealthy.

Ok, but many of us do NOT want the same housing location as the ultra wealthy. I want to live in a condo or small duplex/row house that is convenient to public transportation and is family friendly. I am fine with small homes. Fine with apartments. But I'd like something that doesn't make me car dependent (this is just yet another expense) and where I have some access to public green space like parks and playgrounds (since I don't expect a house with a hard, having some kind of common green space is important). I do not need a bunch of high price restaurants and bars nearby, but having some amenities like a decent grocery store and pharmacy, a library, a few places to eat or drink, and a school within walking, biking, or a short bus ride away would be great.

Like basically I want to live like a middle class European person in a city. I don't need the best schools in the city, I don't need lots of high end dining and retail, I don't expect a huge house our a yard or a garage. I'd like to live somewhere that allows me to walk or take public transportation most of the time, and where I can comfortably have a child or maybe two.

This is unbelievably hard to find in DC. We have sort of found it (we live in a 2 bedroom condo) but the surrounding neighborhood is kind of split between super upscale gentrification (essentially pricing us out of a lot of the businesses near our home because they are geared at people who are making 250k+ and we don't, plus we already had to stretch a bit to buy our condo) and also just poverty.

We'd move to the suburbs (I have nothing against suburbs and don't need the "cool" cache of the city at all, I could care less) but most suburbs would require us to have not only one but two cars and have insufficient connectivity via public transportation. And the suburbs that come closest to this are often as expensive, if not more so, than where we currently live. With the added cost of another vehicle and the fact that most suburbs would force us into more square footage (making the cost savings of being further out a bit of a wash because we'd just wind up spending the same amount, but on a bigger house with a yard because it's hard to find 1000 sq ft condos in the burbs that are family friendly).

Like I'm just really tired of the claim that everyone wants a giant, expensive house in the "best" part of town. I don't. What I actually do want is scalable and would serve the needs of an enormous number of families in this city, especially people making somewhere between 60k and 150k. But instead we keep just building housing for wealthy people and then telling middle class families "move further out" which just increases or transportation costs and decreases our quality of life.

Build a city for middle class people. Rich people will carve out niches for themselves in very desirable areas, which is fine. The city will need to find ways to support, house, and help people in poverty. But if you build a city for middle class folks, you get a city of teachers, construction workers, mid-level managers, young professionals, fire fighters, small business owners, etc. What a great place to live! Imagine how great that would be.

There’s been a few threads touching on this recently, but the root of your problem is that the vast majority of the country has been built over the past 80-100 years to prioritize car ownership. And to avoid owning a car (or to at least be “car light”) you need money to afford. OR you have to be too poor to afford a car and willing to live near lots of bus lines (often in areas with higher crimes and poorer performing schools). Bailey’s Crossroads/Culmore comes to mind as one of those neighborhoods. Otherwise if you’re a MC person you need to get on board with how the generations before us decided we should all live.

My boomer parents cannot fathom why anyone would not be willing to commute “just a little bit farther” to have a new house. They do not understand why the “open road” is not appealing. I mean, you can have the comfort of your own car and not have to deal with public transportation or walking! That is a feature of urban planning over the past decades, not a bug.

And I hate it. I hate that it now costs too much money to tear up and redevelop what has already been built, so instead we have to do infill around places like Tyson’s, which will always be lipstick on a car dependent pig. It’s why the US by and large will never be as charming as the small towns in Europe you would love to live in.

This, exactly. We are living with the consequences of choices made 50-70 years ago. This is why so many younger people are just over it and choosing not to marry or have kids. The infrastructure of society makes it so hard to have a family in this country without buying into a bunch of systems that kind of suck. And if you say "hey, this system kind of sucks, what if we did something else," you get called entitled and stupid.

Even if a whole group of you says "hey, we don't like this system, we don't want to be car dependent, we don't want to live in huge houses on huge lots, we don't want to spend 2 hours a day commuting, we don't want to live so far from our neighbors, we don't want to maintain these giant lawns, etc. And we don't want to have to have two parents working demanding jobs in order to afford our big house on the big lot and the two cars required to make that functional. We want to scale the whole thing way down, live in smaller homes that are walkable and connected to public transportation, and then also have jobs that are less demanding and offer more balance." Older generations are like "that's a pipe dream, shut up, we figured out the best way to do this, how dare you challenge it."

Boomers/Gen X fashioned the world into an image they wanted, and now when we try to do the same, the boomers yell at us and call us selfish. Yet their vision of the country is going to collapse under its own weight eventually anyway, because you can't have a culture premised on dual-working parents and multiple cars and giant homes without creating a whole host of negative externalities (pollution, climate change, mental health issues, family dysfunction) that will eventually break everything apart.

Anyway, we can't have bike lanes or multi-family housing because it will make the car commute of someone living in a 4000 sq ft house in Rockville too long I guess.

1. I don't think you're selfish. More like a utopian. "If only we could wave a magic wand and change everything about the world and the last 200 years of history, everything would be perfect." That's not the way the human experience has worked at any point in recorded history.

2. That said, you can absolutely have everything you want. But YOU need to make it happen, not rely on "society" to come along and make it happen for you. Go ahead and scale down. I'm Gen X and I started my own remote business with less than $5K in capital 10 years ago. I'll never be rich, but I have a flexible schedule, make a decent living, and it's allowed me and my family to live in a LCOL area, in a walkable neighborhood, with great access to outdoor activities and great work/life balance. It's right there in front of you, but you need to figure out how to go get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1000% crisis and when you do put an offer above asking there’s alway some SCHMUK that bids ridiculously higher or forgoes inspections. I hope the market crash and burns again.

Have a pre-inspection done so that you can decide if want to buy the property. Than you can be like the other "SCHMUK that foregoes inspections." Then offer what you can afford or want to pay. If you don't get the house because you can't pay what they offered, this house was too expensive for you.

No ma’am! Only a SCHMUCK would pay $70,000 more than what the house is WORTH ON PAPER. And then cry because they’re underwater and have no equity. I can afford the house but I will not pay $70,000 more than what other houses in the area are worth on the same street. That doesn’t make sense.

Ok but if the alternative is renting forever and/or living somewhere that does not suit you, is that great?
If you’re planning to stay a while, it’s worth it to spend the extra 70k to win the house. If you have to pay 70k “extra” to win the house, then it’s a good bet that others were willing to spend an extra 60k, and would also do so if it were another comparable house in the area. So you are really only out 10k, and now you have the house you are happy with. A house is worth what someone is willing to spend on it, doesn’t matter what it says “on paper”.
You sound penny-wise, pound-foolish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Uh, living in a SFH with good public schools in a Tier 1 city is a luxury good. What's so hard to understand about that? Heck, owning in a SFH in a Tier 1 city is a luxury good in most areas.

This. Its a problem everywhere.

Why is this problem? What right does someone have to live in a walk up on the upper east side? Or a SFH in Beverly Hills? Or a SFH in Palo Alto or San Francisco? Or a SFH or equivalent in London or Paris? The sense of entitlement here is pretty amazing.

Because cities should be attractive places for people to live. All people, not just ultra wealthy people.

Many cities have attractive places for people live from the poorest to the ultra wealthy. There are people who think they should have the same housing location as the ultra wealthy.

Ok, but many of us do NOT want the same housing location as the ultra wealthy. I want to live in a condo or small duplex/row house that is convenient to public transportation and is family friendly. I am fine with small homes. Fine with apartments. But I'd like something that doesn't make me car dependent (this is just yet another expense) and where I have some access to public green space like parks and playgrounds (since I don't expect a house with a hard, having some kind of common green space is important). I do not need a bunch of high price restaurants and bars nearby, but having some amenities like a decent grocery store and pharmacy, a library, a few places to eat or drink, and a school within walking, biking, or a short bus ride away would be great.

Like basically I want to live like a middle class European person in a city. I don't need the best schools in the city, I don't need lots of high end dining and retail, I don't expect a huge house our a yard or a garage. I'd like to live somewhere that allows me to walk or take public transportation most of the time, and where I can comfortably have a child or maybe two.

This is unbelievably hard to find in DC. We have sort of found it (we live in a 2 bedroom condo) but the surrounding neighborhood is kind of split between super upscale gentrification (essentially pricing us out of a lot of the businesses near our home because they are geared at people who are making 250k+ and we don't, plus we already had to stretch a bit to buy our condo) and also just poverty.

We'd move to the suburbs (I have nothing against suburbs and don't need the "cool" cache of the city at all, I could care less) but most suburbs would require us to have not only one but two cars and have insufficient connectivity via public transportation. And the suburbs that come closest to this are often as expensive, if not more so, than where we currently live. With the added cost of another vehicle and the fact that most suburbs would force us into more square footage (making the cost savings of being further out a bit of a wash because we'd just wind up spending the same amount, but on a bigger house with a yard because it's hard to find 1000 sq ft condos in the burbs that are family friendly).

Like I'm just really tired of the claim that everyone wants a giant, expensive house in the "best" part of town. I don't. What I actually do want is scalable and would serve the needs of an enormous number of families in this city, especially people making somewhere between 60k and 150k. But instead we keep just building housing for wealthy people and then telling middle class families "move further out" which just increases or transportation costs and decreases our quality of life.

Build a city for middle class people. Rich people will carve out niches for themselves in very desirable areas, which is fine. The city will need to find ways to support, house, and help people in poverty. But if you build a city for middle class folks, you get a city of teachers, construction workers, mid-level managers, young professionals, fire fighters, small business owners, etc. What a great place to live! Imagine how great that would be.

There’s been a few threads touching on this recently, but the root of your problem is that the vast majority of the country has been built over the past 80-100 years to prioritize car ownership. And to avoid owning a car (or to at least be “car light”) you need money to afford. OR you have to be too poor to afford a car and willing to live near lots of bus lines (often in areas with higher crimes and poorer performing schools). Bailey’s Crossroads/Culmore comes to mind as one of those neighborhoods. Otherwise if you’re a MC person you need to get on board with how the generations before us decided we should all live.

My boomer parents cannot fathom why anyone would not be willing to commute “just a little bit farther” to have a new house. They do not understand why the “open road” is not appealing. I mean, you can have the comfort of your own car and not have to deal with public transportation or walking! That is a feature of urban planning over the past decades, not a bug.

And I hate it. I hate that it now costs too much money to tear up and redevelop what has already been built, so instead we have to do infill around places like Tyson’s, which will always be lipstick on a car dependent pig. It’s why the US by and large will never be as charming as the small towns in Europe you would love to live in.

This, exactly. We are living with the consequences of choices made 50-70 years ago. This is why so many younger people are just over it and choosing not to marry or have kids. The infrastructure of society makes it so hard to have a family in this country without buying into a bunch of systems that kind of suck. And if you say "hey, this system kind of sucks, what if we did something else," you get called entitled and stupid.

Even if a whole group of you says "hey, we don't like this system, we don't want to be car dependent, we don't want to live in huge houses on huge lots, we don't want to spend 2 hours a day commuting, we don't want to live so far from our neighbors, we don't want to maintain these giant lawns, etc. And we don't want to have to have two parents working demanding jobs in order to afford our big house on the big lot and the two cars required to make that functional. We want to scale the whole thing way down, live in smaller homes that are walkable and connected to public transportation, and then also have jobs that are less demanding and offer more balance." Older generations are like "that's a pipe dream, shut up, we figured out the best way to do this, how dare you challenge it."

Boomers/Gen X fashioned the world into an image they wanted, and now when we try to do the same, the boomers yell at us and call us selfish. Yet their vision of the country is going to collapse under its own weight eventually anyway, because you can't have a culture premised on dual-working parents and multiple cars and giant homes without creating a whole host of negative externalities (pollution, climate change, mental health issues, family dysfunction) that will eventually break everything apart.

Anyway, we can't have bike lanes or multi-family housing because it will make the car commute of someone living in a 4000 sq ft house in Rockville too long I guess.

Don't bring GenX into this! As far as I can tell, we're just quietly getting by.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Uh, living in a SFH with good public schools in a Tier 1 city is a luxury good. What's so hard to understand about that? Heck, owning in a SFH in a Tier 1 city is a luxury good in most areas.

This. Its a problem everywhere.

Why is this problem? What right does someone have to live in a walk up on the upper east side? Or a SFH in Beverly Hills? Or a SFH in Palo Alto or San Francisco? Or a SFH or equivalent in London or Paris? The sense of entitlement here is pretty amazing.

Because cities should be attractive places for people to live. All people, not just ultra wealthy people.

Many cities have attractive places for people live from the poorest to the ultra wealthy. There are people who think they should have the same housing location as the ultra wealthy.

Ok, but many of us do NOT want the same housing location as the ultra wealthy. I want to live in a condo or small duplex/row house that is convenient to public transportation and is family friendly. I am fine with small homes. Fine with apartments. But I'd like something that doesn't make me car dependent (this is just yet another expense) and where I have some access to public green space like parks and playgrounds (since I don't expect a house with a hard, having some kind of common green space is important). I do not need a bunch of high price restaurants and bars nearby, but having some amenities like a decent grocery store and pharmacy, a library, a few places to eat or drink, and a school within walking, biking, or a short bus ride away would be great.

Like basically I want to live like a middle class European person in a city. I don't need the best schools in the city, I don't need lots of high end dining and retail, I don't expect a huge house our a yard or a garage. I'd like to live somewhere that allows me to walk or take public transportation most of the time, and where I can comfortably have a child or maybe two.

This is unbelievably hard to find in DC. We have sort of found it (we live in a 2 bedroom condo) but the surrounding neighborhood is kind of split between super upscale gentrification (essentially pricing us out of a lot of the businesses near our home because they are geared at people who are making 250k+ and we don't, plus we already had to stretch a bit to buy our condo) and also just poverty.

We'd move to the suburbs (I have nothing against suburbs and don't need the "cool" cache of the city at all, I could care less) but most suburbs would require us to have not only one but two cars and have insufficient connectivity via public transportation. And the suburbs that come closest to this are often as expensive, if not more so, than where we currently live. With the added cost of another vehicle and the fact that most suburbs would force us into more square footage (making the cost savings of being further out a bit of a wash because we'd just wind up spending the same amount, but on a bigger house with a yard because it's hard to find 1000 sq ft condos in the burbs that are family friendly).

Like I'm just really tired of the claim that everyone wants a giant, expensive house in the "best" part of town. I don't. What I actually do want is scalable and would serve the needs of an enormous number of families in this city, especially people making somewhere between 60k and 150k. But instead we keep just building housing for wealthy people and then telling middle class families "move further out" which just increases or transportation costs and decreases our quality of life.

Build a city for middle class people. Rich people will carve out niches for themselves in very desirable areas, which is fine. The city will need to find ways to support, house, and help people in poverty. But if you build a city for middle class folks, you get a city of teachers, construction workers, mid-level managers, young professionals, fire fighters, small business owners, etc. What a great place to live! Imagine how great that would be.

There’s been a few threads touching on this recently, but the root of your problem is that the vast majority of the country has been built over the past 80-100 years to prioritize car ownership. And to avoid owning a car (or to at least be “car light”) you need money to afford. OR you have to be too poor to afford a car and willing to live near lots of bus lines (often in areas with higher crimes and poorer performing schools). Bailey’s Crossroads/Culmore comes to mind as one of those neighborhoods. Otherwise if you’re a MC person you need to get on board with how the generations before us decided we should all live.

My boomer parents cannot fathom why anyone would not be willing to commute “just a little bit farther” to have a new house. They do not understand why the “open road” is not appealing. I mean, you can have the comfort of your own car and not have to deal with public transportation or walking! That is a feature of urban planning over the past decades, not a bug.

And I hate it. I hate that it now costs too much money to tear up and redevelop what has already been built, so instead we have to do infill around places like Tyson’s, which will always be lipstick on a car dependent pig. It’s why the US by and large will never be as charming as the small towns in Europe you would love to live in.

This, exactly. We are living with the consequences of choices made 50-70 years ago. This is why so many younger people are just over it and choosing not to marry or have kids. The infrastructure of society makes it so hard to have a family in this country without buying into a bunch of systems that kind of suck. And if you say "hey, this system kind of sucks, what if we did something else," you get called entitled and stupid.

Even if a whole group of you says "hey, we don't like this system, we don't want to be car dependent, we don't want to live in huge houses on huge lots, we don't want to spend 2 hours a day commuting, we don't want to live so far from our neighbors, we don't want to maintain these giant lawns, etc. And we don't want to have to have two parents working demanding jobs in order to afford our big house on the big lot and the two cars required to make that functional. We want to scale the whole thing way down, live in smaller homes that are walkable and connected to public transportation, and then also have jobs that are less demanding and offer more balance." Older generations are like "that's a pipe dream, shut up, we figured out the best way to do this, how dare you challenge it."

Boomers/Gen X fashioned the world into an image they wanted, and now when we try to do the same, the boomers yell at us and call us selfish. Yet their vision of the country is going to collapse under its own weight eventually anyway, because you can't have a culture premised on dual-working parents and multiple cars and giant homes without creating a whole host of negative externalities (pollution, climate change, mental health issues, family dysfunction) that will eventually break everything apart.

Anyway, we can't have bike lanes or multi-family housing because it will make the car commute of someone living in a 4000 sq ft house in Rockville too long I guess.

Don't bring GenX into this! As far as I can tell, we're just quietly getting by.

This car dependency was baked in by the generation before the Boomers, and the Boomers. And yes, you get told that you're selfish and entitled, or that individual choices are the solution to systemic problems, and it's so frustrating. Some areas are zoned for SFHs only, so you can't even build the thing that you want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Uh, living in a SFH with good public schools in a Tier 1 city is a luxury good. What's so hard to understand about that? Heck, owning in a SFH in a Tier 1 city is a luxury good in most areas.

This. Its a problem everywhere.

Why is this problem? What right does someone have to live in a walk up on the upper east side? Or a SFH in Beverly Hills? Or a SFH in Palo Alto or San Francisco? Or a SFH or equivalent in London or Paris? The sense of entitlement here is pretty amazing.

Because cities should be attractive places for people to live. All people, not just ultra wealthy people.

Many cities have attractive places for people live from the poorest to the ultra wealthy. There are people who think they should have the same housing location as the ultra wealthy.

Ok, but many of us do NOT want the same housing location as the ultra wealthy. I want to live in a condo or small duplex/row house that is convenient to public transportation and is family friendly. I am fine with small homes. Fine with apartments. But I'd like something that doesn't make me car dependent (this is just yet another expense) and where I have some access to public green space like parks and playgrounds (since I don't expect a house with a hard, having some kind of common green space is important). I do not need a bunch of high price restaurants and bars nearby, but having some amenities like a decent grocery store and pharmacy, a library, a few places to eat or drink, and a school within walking, biking, or a short bus ride away would be great.

Like basically I want to live like a middle class European person in a city. I don't need the best schools in the city, I don't need lots of high end dining and retail, I don't expect a huge house our a yard or a garage. I'd like to live somewhere that allows me to walk or take public transportation most of the time, and where I can comfortably have a child or maybe two.

This is unbelievably hard to find in DC. We have sort of found it (we live in a 2 bedroom condo) but the surrounding neighborhood is kind of split between super upscale gentrification (essentially pricing us out of a lot of the businesses near our home because they are geared at people who are making 250k+ and we don't, plus we already had to stretch a bit to buy our condo) and also just poverty.

We'd move to the suburbs (I have nothing against suburbs and don't need the "cool" cache of the city at all, I could care less) but most suburbs would require us to have not only one but two cars and have insufficient connectivity via public transportation. And the suburbs that come closest to this are often as expensive, if not more so, than where we currently live. With the added cost of another vehicle and the fact that most suburbs would force us into more square footage (making the cost savings of being further out a bit of a wash because we'd just wind up spending the same amount, but on a bigger house with a yard because it's hard to find 1000 sq ft condos in the burbs that are family friendly).

Like I'm just really tired of the claim that everyone wants a giant, expensive house in the "best" part of town. I don't. What I actually do want is scalable and would serve the needs of an enormous number of families in this city, especially people making somewhere between 60k and 150k. But instead we keep just building housing for wealthy people and then telling middle class families "move further out" which just increases or transportation costs and decreases our quality of life.

Build a city for middle class people. Rich people will carve out niches for themselves in very desirable areas, which is fine. The city will need to find ways to support, house, and help people in poverty. But if you build a city for middle class folks, you get a city of teachers, construction workers, mid-level managers, young professionals, fire fighters, small business owners, etc. What a great place to live! Imagine how great that would be.

There’s been a few threads touching on this recently, but the root of your problem is that the vast majority of the country has been built over the past 80-100 years to prioritize car ownership. And to avoid owning a car (or to at least be “car light”) you need money to afford. OR you have to be too poor to afford a car and willing to live near lots of bus lines (often in areas with higher crimes and poorer performing schools). Bailey’s Crossroads/Culmore comes to mind as one of those neighborhoods. Otherwise if you’re a MC person you need to get on board with how the generations before us decided we should all live.

My boomer parents cannot fathom why anyone would not be willing to commute “just a little bit farther” to have a new house. They do not understand why the “open road” is not appealing. I mean, you can have the comfort of your own car and not have to deal with public transportation or walking! That is a feature of urban planning over the past decades, not a bug.

And I hate it. I hate that it now costs too much money to tear up and redevelop what has already been built, so instead we have to do infill around places like Tyson’s, which will always be lipstick on a car dependent pig. It’s why the US by and large will never be as charming as the small towns in Europe you would love to live in.

This, exactly. We are living with the consequences of choices made 50-70 years ago. This is why so many younger people are just over it and choosing not to marry or have kids. The infrastructure of society makes it so hard to have a family in this country without buying into a bunch of systems that kind of suck. And if you say "hey, this system kind of sucks, what if we did something else," you get called entitled and stupid.

Even if a whole group of you says "hey, we don't like this system, we don't want to be car dependent, we don't want to live in huge houses on huge lots, we don't want to spend 2 hours a day commuting, we don't want to live so far from our neighbors, we don't want to maintain these giant lawns, etc. And we don't want to have to have two parents working demanding jobs in order to afford our big house on the big lot and the two cars required to make that functional. We want to scale the whole thing way down, live in smaller homes that are walkable and connected to public transportation, and then also have jobs that are less demanding and offer more balance." Older generations are like "that's a pipe dream, shut up, we figured out the best way to do this, how dare you challenge it."

Boomers/Gen X fashioned the world into an image they wanted, and now when we try to do the same, the boomers yell at us and call us selfish. Yet their vision of the country is going to collapse under its own weight eventually anyway, because you can't have a culture premised on dual-working parents and multiple cars and giant homes without creating a whole host of negative externalities (pollution, climate change, mental health issues, family dysfunction) that will eventually break everything apart.

Anyway, we can't have bike lanes or multi-family housing because it will make the car commute of someone living in a 4000 sq ft house in Rockville too long I guess.

Don't bring GenX into this! As far as I can tell, we're just quietly getting by.

This car dependency was baked in by the generation before the Boomers, and the Boomers. And yes, you get told that you're selfish and entitled, or that individual choices are the solution to systemic problems, and it's so frustrating. Some areas are zoned for SFHs only, so you can't even build the thing that you want.

There is a VERY significant amount of multifamily housing under construction in northern Virginia, much of it in good school districts.