DC Expensive Real Estate causing Millennials to leave for the suburbs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No it wasn't. G'town, Spring Valley, Kent, yes. But AU Park was for white-collar government workers, nothing super fancy. East of 16th St was never an elite anything.

Yeah seriously. AU Park and CCDC (especially areas that fed into Janney, Lafayette, and Murch) used to be very much white collar federal workers. I grew up in CCDC and had friends who went to Janney and Murch from ballet class. It used to be the area where people lived who were college educated, but not super high earners. Not lobbyists, Big Law, finance people, etc. but just a federal attorney and his SAH wife, or a couple of journalists, or an NIH worker and someone who worked at a non-profit. Those people obviously worked to make their schools as good as possible and wanted good educations for their children (it was always an educated area), but it wasn't super fancy. It's amazing how much that area has changed since I grew up.

Yeah, lots of couples that are 50+ years old in our Lafayette neighborhood are government/non-profit types. All the parents under 40 or so tend to have a at least one parent at Big Law, a defense contractor, etc.

It's the rapid rise in real estate costs. There was a time when Cleveland Park was typically government scientists, academics and (non-celebrity) journalists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No it wasn't. G'town, Spring Valley, Kent, yes. But AU Park was for white-collar government workers, nothing super fancy. East of 16th St was never an elite anything.

Yeah seriously. AU Park and CCDC (especially areas that fed into Janney, Lafayette, and Murch) used to be very much white collar federal workers. I grew up in CCDC and had friends who went to Janney and Murch from ballet class. It used to be the area where people lived who were college educated, but not super high earners. Not lobbyists, Big Law, finance people, etc. but just a federal attorney and his SAH wife, or a couple of journalists, or an NIH worker and someone who worked at a non-profit. Those people obviously worked to make their schools as good as possible and wanted good educations for their children (it was always an educated area), but it wasn't super fancy. It's amazing how much that area has changed since I grew up.

I would still not call AU Park "super fancy." But it is becoming super expensive.

[Anonymous]

Go east, young man! (and woman). Anacostia is well-located and has some of the best views in the city. And the ex-mayor-for-life won't be around for much longer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I believe the point that was trying to be made was that there are indeed affordable nice neighborhoods in DC. It is irritating to hear the city isn't affordable when it is really a matter of people not wanting to compromise on what they can afford vs. what they want.

Actually, what's irritating is some people's deliberate refusal to understand that "living in the city" doesn't mean simply putting your head down in any zipcode USPS classifies as belonging to the D. of C.

Do you not seriously understand that when people say "living in the city", they mean it as living in a particular set of circumstances and amenities that's qualitatively - not just geographically - different from suburbs? That some areas of DC, actually quite many of them, are qualitatively suburban by every measure that counts - lack of public transit, lack of sidewalks, lack of walkability, lack of things to which to walk, distance to the nearest grocery store, distance to work, library, school, restaurant, rec center, really anything? What argument is there for choosing these areas of DC over suburbs? The dubious honor of "living in the city"?

Close-in location. Lots of green space. Good schools in much of Upper NW. Where we live is less dense than downtown Bethesda, and by gosh, we want to keep it that way!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I believe the point that was trying to be made was that there are indeed affordable nice neighborhoods in DC. It is irritating to hear the city isn't affordable when it is really a matter of people not wanting to compromise on what they can afford vs. what they want.

Actually, what's irritating is some people's deliberate refusal to understand that "living in the city" doesn't mean simply putting your head down in any zipcode USPS classifies as belonging to the D. of C.

Do you not seriously understand that when people say "living in the city", they mean it as living in a particular set of circumstances and amenities that's qualitatively - not just geographically - different from suburbs? That some areas of DC, actually quite many of them, are qualitatively suburban by every measure that counts - lack of public transit, lack of sidewalks, lack of walkability, lack of things to which to walk, distance to the nearest grocery store, distance to work, library, school, restaurant, rec center, really anything? What argument is there for choosing these areas of DC over suburbs? The dubious honor of "living in the city"?

Commute? I mean, isn't it still easier to get downtown from, say, Woodridge than it is from Silver Spring or Arlington?

But overall I do agree with you.

I live near the Orange Line in Arlington but used to live in Woodridge.

No. It's much, much easier to get to downtown from North Arlington than Woodridge. Both driving and metro.