Top public elementary with neighborhood feel?

[Anonymous]

^^ As is Peabody, actually.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We really like Maury, near Lincoln Park. Ticks all the boxes you mention and easy commute to Pentagon via 695/395. We also wanted small classes and a tight knit feel and it’s been great. Only downside is the feeder pattern - middle school is fine (people vary on this but the number of people from Maury sending kids there is increasingly significantly each year, so would be even better by the time your kid gets there) but high school is a no for almost everyone.

+1. Neighborhood is wonderful too— feels like a small town but is minutes away from H Street, Union Market, etc. I bike to work downtown in 10 min. Highly recommend!

When we decided to move into the city from the 'burbs this was one of the first neighborhoods we looked at. Our impression was that it may be nice for a short and specific slice of your life but that's IT. Nothing but 30-something white folks pushing expensive strollers while their designer dog tagged along. We were horrified. If we wanted that, we'd stayed in NOVA. We quickly looked elsewhere.

Please take your racism elsewhere. Comment reported. It's 2025, that stuff isn't appreciated anymore loser.

+1/2

The casual use of “white” as a pejorative doesn’t help anyone. It often shuts down conversations by sparking knee-jerk offense without offering much insight. One thing I’ve noticed is that it’s usually white people who describe a place as “too white.” By contrast, Black folks and other people of color are more likely to express concern about the absence of Black people or other POC — in other words, to point out a lack of diversity, not to characterize whiteness itself as a problem.

This difference in framing really matters. When white people casually label something as “too white,” they can unintentionally come off as flippant or antagonistic — and that can trigger backlash from other white people. But here’s the thing: it’s not usually those white folks who bear the brunt of that backlash. It’s people like me — Black people, people of color, our kids — who end up paying the price.

In today’s political climate, a lot of people are just waiting for an excuse to come after us. So when well-meaning white folks casually toss around anti-white framing, it gives those bad-faith actors ammunition. I really need you to not do that.

Don’t make it harder for my sons, for me, for families like ours. Just… stop.

I know plenty of black folks who tell me that certain neighborhoods are "too white."

Racist?

Probably not, because they are likely using “white” as shorthand for a deficit of “cultural” amenities they’d prefer, not a castigation of white people as “bad.”

This of course isn’t a big deal to all black folks. I’m black and don’t care, but have extended family that prefer easy access to culturally black spaces at the neighborhood level.

But it’s still problematic phraseology if used casually in public, because it allows folks (often disingenuously) to scream reverse racism. So, for purely practical reasons, I’d prefer people not use descriptors that suggest a certain modicum of whiteness is “too” much.

But most people (including my wife) don’t really care what I think on this score.

I'm the poster who first said that CH is too "white," and I agree with you. And yes, I'm white. I guess I don't really consider saying a neighborhood is "too white" on a forum such as this is saying it "in public." And when I said it other posters knew exactly what I was talking about. The only disagreement was whether I was being racist in point out the obvious.

Note that I didn't say the neighborhood was just "white." I also said it was largely white women in their 30s pushing expensive strollers with designer dogs at their side. And it IS, at least from my perspective. I don't consider it "racist" to not want to live in a neighborhood that's too much of anything. We didn't want that when we moved into the city. We wanted more diversity in terms of age, race, wealth, dogs -- everything.

The virtue signaling is strong with this one. You are basically saying you want other races to be used as a prop in your own neighborhood so you can feel less bad about yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We really like Maury, near Lincoln Park. Ticks all the boxes you mention and easy commute to Pentagon via 695/395. We also wanted small classes and a tight knit feel and it’s been great. Only downside is the feeder pattern - middle school is fine (people vary on this but the number of people from Maury sending kids there is increasingly significantly each year, so would be even better by the time your kid gets there) but high school is a no for almost everyone.

+1. Neighborhood is wonderful too— feels like a small town but is minutes away from H Street, Union Market, etc. I bike to work downtown in 10 min. Highly recommend!

When we decided to move into the city from the 'burbs this was one of the first neighborhoods we looked at. Our impression was that it may be nice for a short and specific slice of your life but that's IT. Nothing but 30-something white folks pushing expensive strollers while their designer dog tagged along. We were horrified. If we wanted that, we'd stayed in NOVA. We quickly looked elsewhere.

Please take your racism elsewhere. Comment reported. It's 2025, that stuff isn't appreciated anymore loser.

+1/2

The casual use of “white” as a pejorative doesn’t help anyone. It often shuts down conversations by sparking knee-jerk offense without offering much insight. One thing I’ve noticed is that it’s usually white people who describe a place as “too white.” By contrast, Black folks and other people of color are more likely to express concern about the absence of Black people or other POC — in other words, to point out a lack of diversity, not to characterize whiteness itself as a problem.

This difference in framing really matters. When white people casually label something as “too white,” they can unintentionally come off as flippant or antagonistic — and that can trigger backlash from other white people. But here’s the thing: it’s not usually those white folks who bear the brunt of that backlash. It’s people like me — Black people, people of color, our kids — who end up paying the price.

In today’s political climate, a lot of people are just waiting for an excuse to come after us. So when well-meaning white folks casually toss around anti-white framing, it gives those bad-faith actors ammunition. I really need you to not do that.

Don’t make it harder for my sons, for me, for families like ours. Just… stop.

I know plenty of black folks who tell me that certain neighborhoods are "too white."

Racist?

Probably not, because they are likely using “white” as shorthand for a deficit of “cultural” amenities they’d prefer, not a castigation of white people as “bad.”

This of course isn’t a big deal to all black folks. I’m black and don’t care, but have extended family that prefer easy access to culturally black spaces at the neighborhood level.

But it’s still problematic phraseology if used casually in public, because it allows folks (often disingenuously) to scream reverse racism. So, for purely practical reasons, I’d prefer people not use descriptors that suggest a certain modicum of whiteness is “too” much.

But most people (including my wife) don’t really care what I think on this score.

I'm the poster who first said that CH is too "white," and I agree with you. And yes, I'm white. I guess I don't really consider saying a neighborhood is "too white" on a forum such as this is saying it "in public." And when I said it other posters knew exactly what I was talking about. The only disagreement was whether I was being racist in point out the obvious.

Note that I didn't say the neighborhood was just "white." I also said it was largely white women in their 30s pushing expensive strollers with designer dogs at their side. And it IS, at least from my perspective. I don't consider it "racist" to not want to live in a neighborhood that's too much of anything. We didn't want that when we moved into the city. We wanted more diversity in terms of age, race, wealth, dogs -- everything.

The women pushing strollers around the SFHs in 20009 are significantly more wealthy than the ones in 20003. I can understand why someone would pick the neighborhoods in 20009 over the relatively sleepier 20003, but doing so on the basis of diversity is laughable.

Really? I'm a different poster but am sitting in 20009 right now. There are extremely wealthy people living in 5 million dollar townhouses, families squeezed into apartments, used book stores, lots of Latino restaurants and people in Adams Morgan, gay men who have lived here for 30+ years, and etc etc. it's a significantly denser and more "city like" area that 20003, which is less dense and more uniform. I completely understand what that poster means.

The most obvious thing to point out is that neither Maury nor its IB are in the 20003 zip code, so I'm not sure if this is just a bad troll attempt people have jumped on or what. Maury and its neighborhood are actually in 20002, which is among the most diverse zip codes in DC... well ahead of 20009. See, e.g., here: https://www.niche.com/places-to-live/search/most-diverse-zip-codes/s/district-of-columbia/.

Brent, Chisolm, Payne, and Watkins are all in 20003. I think 20003 is a better proxy for Capitol Hill than 20002.

I mean, first, the poster literally recommended the Maury neighborhood and talked about H Street, so it's unclear why a different part of the neighborhood being a better proxy for "Capitol Hill" is relevant. Also, not really. Ludlow, SWS, Maury and CHML are all in 20002.

If you read the thread, many posts have been about Capitol Hill generally, not just Maury.

CHML and SWS are citywide schools only accessible via lottery; not so relevant to a neighborhood discussion.

The PP who hates CH oddly only offered up a zip code for the neighborhood they chose, not a school boundary. But I agree it would be much more interesting and valuable to talk about on a school level. In 20009 they could be zoned for Oyster-Adams, Ross, Marie-Reed, HD Cooke, Tubman, Garrison, John-Francis, or Seaton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We really like Maury, near Lincoln Park. Ticks all the boxes you mention and easy commute to Pentagon via 695/395. We also wanted small classes and a tight knit feel and it’s been great. Only downside is the feeder pattern - middle school is fine (people vary on this but the number of people from Maury sending kids there is increasingly significantly each year, so would be even better by the time your kid gets there) but high school is a no for almost everyone.

+1. Neighborhood is wonderful too— feels like a small town but is minutes away from H Street, Union Market, etc. I bike to work downtown in 10 min. Highly recommend!

When we decided to move into the city from the 'burbs this was one of the first neighborhoods we looked at. Our impression was that it may be nice for a short and specific slice of your life but that's IT. Nothing but 30-something white folks pushing expensive strollers while their designer dog tagged along. We were horrified. If we wanted that, we'd stayed in NOVA. We quickly looked elsewhere.

Please take your racism elsewhere. Comment reported. It's 2025, that stuff isn't appreciated anymore loser.

+1/2

The casual use of “white” as a pejorative doesn’t help anyone. It often shuts down conversations by sparking knee-jerk offense without offering much insight. One thing I’ve noticed is that it’s usually white people who describe a place as “too white.” By contrast, Black folks and other people of color are more likely to express concern about the absence of Black people or other POC — in other words, to point out a lack of diversity, not to characterize whiteness itself as a problem.

This difference in framing really matters. When white people casually label something as “too white,” they can unintentionally come off as flippant or antagonistic — and that can trigger backlash from other white people. But here’s the thing: it’s not usually those white folks who bear the brunt of that backlash. It’s people like me — Black people, people of color, our kids — who end up paying the price.

In today’s political climate, a lot of people are just waiting for an excuse to come after us. So when well-meaning white folks casually toss around anti-white framing, it gives those bad-faith actors ammunition. I really need you to not do that.

Don’t make it harder for my sons, for me, for families like ours. Just… stop.

I know plenty of black folks who tell me that certain neighborhoods are "too white."

Racist?

Probably not, because they are likely using “white” as shorthand for a deficit of “cultural” amenities they’d prefer, not a castigation of white people as “bad.”

This of course isn’t a big deal to all black folks. I’m black and don’t care, but have extended family that prefer easy access to culturally black spaces at the neighborhood level.

But it’s still problematic phraseology if used casually in public, because it allows folks (often disingenuously) to scream reverse racism. So, for purely practical reasons, I’d prefer people not use descriptors that suggest a certain modicum of whiteness is “too” much.

But most people (including my wife) don’t really care what I think on this score.

I'm the poster who first said that CH is too "white," and I agree with you. And yes, I'm white. I guess I don't really consider saying a neighborhood is "too white" on a forum such as this is saying it "in public." And when I said it other posters knew exactly what I was talking about. The only disagreement was whether I was being racist in point out the obvious.

Note that I didn't say the neighborhood was just "white." I also said it was largely white women in their 30s pushing expensive strollers with designer dogs at their side. And it IS, at least from my perspective. I don't consider it "racist" to not want to live in a neighborhood that's too much of anything. We didn't want that when we moved into the city. We wanted more diversity in terms of age, race, wealth, dogs -- everything.

The women pushing strollers around the SFHs in 20009 are significantly more wealthy than the ones in 20003. I can understand why someone would pick the neighborhoods in 20009 over the relatively sleepier 20003, but doing so on the basis of diversity is laughable.

Really? I'm a different poster but am sitting in 20009 right now. There are extremely wealthy people living in 5 million dollar townhouses, families squeezed into apartments, used book stores, lots of Latino restaurants and people in Adams Morgan, gay men who have lived here for 30+ years, and etc etc. it's a significantly denser and more "city like" area that 20003, which is less dense and more uniform. I completely understand what that poster means.

The most obvious thing to point out is that neither Maury nor its IB are in the 20003 zip code, so I'm not sure if this is just a bad troll attempt people have jumped on or what. Maury and its neighborhood are actually in 20002, which is among the most diverse zip codes in DC... well ahead of 20009. See, e.g., here: https://www.niche.com/places-to-live/search/most-diverse-zip-codes/s/district-of-columbia/.

Brent, Chisolm, Payne, and Watkins are all in 20003. I think 20003 is a better proxy for Capitol Hill than 20002.

I mean, first, the poster literally recommended the Maury neighborhood and talked about H Street, so it's unclear why a different part of the neighborhood being a better proxy for "Capitol Hill" is relevant. Also, not really. Ludlow, SWS, Maury and CHML are all in 20002.

Right, so is Kingman Park, Rosedale, Trinidad, and near the arboretum. It’s just not a good way to narrowly define a neighborhood when looking for real estate, that’s all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We really like Maury, near Lincoln Park. Ticks all the boxes you mention and easy commute to Pentagon via 695/395. We also wanted small classes and a tight knit feel and it’s been great. Only downside is the feeder pattern - middle school is fine (people vary on this but the number of people from Maury sending kids there is increasingly significantly each year, so would be even better by the time your kid gets there) but high school is a no for almost everyone.

+1. Neighborhood is wonderful too— feels like a small town but is minutes away from H Street, Union Market, etc. I bike to work downtown in 10 min. Highly recommend!

When we decided to move into the city from the 'burbs this was one of the first neighborhoods we looked at. Our impression was that it may be nice for a short and specific slice of your life but that's IT. Nothing but 30-something white folks pushing expensive strollers while their designer dog tagged along. We were horrified. If we wanted that, we'd stayed in NOVA. We quickly looked elsewhere.

Please take your racism elsewhere. Comment reported. It's 2025, that stuff isn't appreciated anymore loser.

+1/2

The casual use of “white” as a pejorative doesn’t help anyone. It often shuts down conversations by sparking knee-jerk offense without offering much insight. One thing I’ve noticed is that it’s usually white people who describe a place as “too white.” By contrast, Black folks and other people of color are more likely to express concern about the absence of Black people or other POC — in other words, to point out a lack of diversity, not to characterize whiteness itself as a problem.

This difference in framing really matters. When white people casually label something as “too white,” they can unintentionally come off as flippant or antagonistic — and that can trigger backlash from other white people. But here’s the thing: it’s not usually those white folks who bear the brunt of that backlash. It’s people like me — Black people, people of color, our kids — who end up paying the price.

In today’s political climate, a lot of people are just waiting for an excuse to come after us. So when well-meaning white folks casually toss around anti-white framing, it gives those bad-faith actors ammunition. I really need you to not do that.

Don’t make it harder for my sons, for me, for families like ours. Just… stop.

I know plenty of black folks who tell me that certain neighborhoods are "too white."

Racist?

Probably not, because they are likely using “white” as shorthand for a deficit of “cultural” amenities they’d prefer, not a castigation of white people as “bad.”

This of course isn’t a big deal to all black folks. I’m black and don’t care, but have extended family that prefer easy access to culturally black spaces at the neighborhood level.

But it’s still problematic phraseology if used casually in public, because it allows folks (often disingenuously) to scream reverse racism. So, for purely practical reasons, I’d prefer people not use descriptors that suggest a certain modicum of whiteness is “too” much.

But most people (including my wife) don’t really care what I think on this score.

I'm the poster who first said that CH is too "white," and I agree with you. And yes, I'm white. I guess I don't really consider saying a neighborhood is "too white" on a forum such as this is saying it "in public." And when I said it other posters knew exactly what I was talking about. The only disagreement was whether I was being racist in point out the obvious.

Note that I didn't say the neighborhood was just "white." I also said it was largely white women in their 30s pushing expensive strollers with designer dogs at their side. And it IS, at least from my perspective. I don't consider it "racist" to not want to live in a neighborhood that's too much of anything. We didn't want that when we moved into the city. We wanted more diversity in terms of age, race, wealth, dogs -- everything.

The women pushing strollers around the SFHs in 20009 are significantly more wealthy than the ones in 20003. I can understand why someone would pick the neighborhoods in 20009 over the relatively sleepier 20003, but doing so on the basis of diversity is laughable.

Really? I'm a different poster but am sitting in 20009 right now. There are extremely wealthy people living in 5 million dollar townhouses, families squeezed into apartments, used book stores, lots of Latino restaurants and people in Adams Morgan, gay men who have lived here for 30+ years, and etc etc. it's a significantly denser and more "city like" area that 20003, which is less dense and more uniform. I completely understand what that poster means.

The most obvious thing to point out is that neither Maury nor its IB are in the 20003 zip code, so I'm not sure if this is just a bad troll attempt people have jumped on or what. Maury and its neighborhood are actually in 20002, which is among the most diverse zip codes in DC... well ahead of 20009. See, e.g., here: https://www.niche.com/places-to-live/search/most-diverse-zip-codes/s/district-of-columbia/.

Brent, Chisolm, Payne, and Watkins are all in 20003. I think 20003 is a better proxy for Capitol Hill than 20002.

I mean, first, the poster literally recommended the Maury neighborhood and talked about H Street, so it's unclear why a different part of the neighborhood being a better proxy for "Capitol Hill" is relevant. Also, not really. Ludlow, SWS, Maury and CHML are all in 20002.

If you read the thread, many posts have been about Capitol Hill generally, not just Maury.

CHML and SWS are citywide schools only accessible via lottery; not so relevant to a neighborhood discussion.

The PP who hates CH oddly only offered up a zip code for the neighborhood they chose, not a school boundary. But I agree it would be much more interesting and valuable to talk about on a school level. In 20009 they could be zoned for Oyster-Adams, Ross, Marie-Reed, HD Cooke, Tubman, Garrison, John-Francis, or Seaton.

I agree... but if we're comparing zip codes, because that's all we have, we should at least be comparing the neighborhood they actually called "too white," which is the one around Maury (since that's what the poster they were responding to recommended and then talked about H Street)... which is NOT 20003. So either we're Maury's neighborhood vs where they moved or 20002 vs 20009, the latter of which clearly goes to 20002 if we're talking diversity. Also, if we're talking actual neighborhood, then the area around Maury itself (say within .5 of a mile radius?) is actually not super white and includes up to ~ H St. and out to 17th St on C. Like really, genuinely, not all white people pushing strollers and several apartment buildings which that poster said were lacking. Like the poster appears to have looked at one block of Lincoln Park and pronounced it too white compared to... all of Adams Morgan? Well, no kidding, but that's obviously a completely false comparison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We really like Maury, near Lincoln Park. Ticks all the boxes you mention and easy commute to Pentagon via 695/395. We also wanted small classes and a tight knit feel and it’s been great. Only downside is the feeder pattern - middle school is fine (people vary on this but the number of people from Maury sending kids there is increasingly significantly each year, so would be even better by the time your kid gets there) but high school is a no for almost everyone.

+1. Neighborhood is wonderful too— feels like a small town but is minutes away from H Street, Union Market, etc. I bike to work downtown in 10 min. Highly recommend!

When we decided to move into the city from the 'burbs this was one of the first neighborhoods we looked at. Our impression was that it may be nice for a short and specific slice of your life but that's IT. Nothing but 30-something white folks pushing expensive strollers while their designer dog tagged along. We were horrified. If we wanted that, we'd stayed in NOVA. We quickly looked elsewhere.

Please take your racism elsewhere. Comment reported. It's 2025, that stuff isn't appreciated anymore loser.

+1/2

The casual use of “white” as a pejorative doesn’t help anyone. It often shuts down conversations by sparking knee-jerk offense without offering much insight. One thing I’ve noticed is that it’s usually white people who describe a place as “too white.” By contrast, Black folks and other people of color are more likely to express concern about the absence of Black people or other POC — in other words, to point out a lack of diversity, not to characterize whiteness itself as a problem.

This difference in framing really matters. When white people casually label something as “too white,” they can unintentionally come off as flippant or antagonistic — and that can trigger backlash from other white people. But here’s the thing: it’s not usually those white folks who bear the brunt of that backlash. It’s people like me — Black people, people of color, our kids — who end up paying the price.

In today’s political climate, a lot of people are just waiting for an excuse to come after us. So when well-meaning white folks casually toss around anti-white framing, it gives those bad-faith actors ammunition. I really need you to not do that.

Don’t make it harder for my sons, for me, for families like ours. Just… stop.

I know plenty of black folks who tell me that certain neighborhoods are "too white."

Racist?

Probably not, because they are likely using “white” as shorthand for a deficit of “cultural” amenities they’d prefer, not a castigation of white people as “bad.”

This of course isn’t a big deal to all black folks. I’m black and don’t care, but have extended family that prefer easy access to culturally black spaces at the neighborhood level.

But it’s still problematic phraseology if used casually in public, because it allows folks (often disingenuously) to scream reverse racism. So, for purely practical reasons, I’d prefer people not use descriptors that suggest a certain modicum of whiteness is “too” much.

But most people (including my wife) don’t really care what I think on this score.

I'm the poster who first said that CH is too "white," and I agree with you. And yes, I'm white. I guess I don't really consider saying a neighborhood is "too white" on a forum such as this is saying it "in public." And when I said it other posters knew exactly what I was talking about. The only disagreement was whether I was being racist in point out the obvious.

Note that I didn't say the neighborhood was just "white." I also said it was largely white women in their 30s pushing expensive strollers with designer dogs at their side. And it IS, at least from my perspective. I don't consider it "racist" to not want to live in a neighborhood that's too much of anything. We didn't want that when we moved into the city. We wanted more diversity in terms of age, race, wealth, dogs -- everything.

The women pushing strollers around the SFHs in 20009 are significantly more wealthy than the ones in 20003. I can understand why someone would pick the neighborhoods in 20009 over the relatively sleepier 20003, but doing so on the basis of diversity is laughable.

Really? I'm a different poster but am sitting in 20009 right now. There are extremely wealthy people living in 5 million dollar townhouses, families squeezed into apartments, used book stores, lots of Latino restaurants and people in Adams Morgan, gay men who have lived here for 30+ years, and etc etc. it's a significantly denser and more "city like" area that 20003, which is less dense and more uniform. I completely understand what that poster means.

The most obvious thing to point out is that neither Maury nor its IB are in the 20003 zip code, so I'm not sure if this is just a bad troll attempt people have jumped on or what. Maury and its neighborhood are actually in 20002, which is among the most diverse zip codes in DC... well ahead of 20009. See, e.g., here: https://www.niche.com/places-to-live/search/most-diverse-zip-codes/s/district-of-columbia/.

Brent, Chisolm, Payne, and Watkins are all in 20003. I think 20003 is a better proxy for Capitol Hill than 20002.

I mean, first, the poster literally recommended the Maury neighborhood and talked about H Street, so it's unclear why a different part of the neighborhood being a better proxy for "Capitol Hill" is relevant. Also, not really. Ludlow, SWS, Maury and CHML are all in 20002.

If you read the thread, many posts have been about Capitol Hill generally, not just Maury.

CHML and SWS are citywide schools only accessible via lottery; not so relevant to a neighborhood discussion.

The PP who hates CH oddly only offered up a zip code for the neighborhood they chose, not a school boundary. But I agree it would be much more interesting and valuable to talk about on a school level. In 20009 they could be zoned for Oyster-Adams, Ross, Marie-Reed, HD Cooke, Tubman, Garrison, John-Francis, or Seaton.

No. When people talk about schools on Capitol Hill, they always include these two in the discussion. How you get in doesn't have anything to do with whether 20003 is a better proxy for "Capitol Hill" than 20002 is. I mean CHML stands for something... just can't think what it is... Oh, wait.

[Anonymous]

I'm the "too white" poster, and for the record I never said Maury was 20003. I don't know the CH zips codes at all. Another poster responded to my saying that I ended up in 20009 by comparing it to 20003.

All I'm saying, again, is that the first place we looked after deciding to move into the city was CH, including specifically the neighborhood around Lincoln Park, and all I saw was white couples in their 30s and 40s pushing expensive strollers while accompanied by designer dogs. I was like, nope! But maybe that's what OP wants. We wanted more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm the "too white" poster, and for the record I never said Maury was 20003. I don't know the CH zips codes at all. Another poster responded to my saying that I ended up in 20009 by comparing it to 20003.

All I'm saying, again, is that the first place we looked after deciding to move into the city was CH, including specifically the neighborhood around Lincoln Park, and all I saw was white couples in their 30s and 40s pushing expensive strollers while accompanied by designer dogs. I was like, nope! But maybe that's what OP wants. We wanted more.

I think this vibe is why people are getting offended. Adams Morgan isn't inherently better than Capitol Hill. I've lived in DC for a long time and have lived in both neighborhoods. They are just ... different, and different kinds of people want to live there. Capitol Hill feels quieter and more like a village within a city and many people are connected to The Hill for work and people don't generally come to NW very often. It's too far and annoying so they stay on the Hill.

Adams Morgan and Dupont and U street just have a more gritty and simultaneously wealthy and more chaotic city vibe, and are more integrated into the larger city.

It's just different. Not better! Not "more."

[Anonymous]

+1.

20002 is a huge zip code spanning many neighborhoods (going all the way up to Eckington and Edgewood!) of which the Maury boundary is a tiny sleepy sliver with very few apartment buildings, and mostly rowhomes now occupied by UMC families with small children. The Maury boundary abuts no commercial strips/districts (although that will change with the future RFK development). The vibe absolutely could not be more different than Adams Morgan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the "too white" poster, and for the record I never said Maury was 20003. I don't know the CH zips codes at all. Another poster responded to my saying that I ended up in 20009 by comparing it to 20003.

All I'm saying, again, is that the first place we looked after deciding to move into the city was CH, including specifically the neighborhood around Lincoln Park, and all I saw was white couples in their 30s and 40s pushing expensive strollers while accompanied by designer dogs. I was like, nope! But maybe that's what OP wants. We wanted more.

I think this vibe is why people are getting offended. Adams Morgan isn't inherently better than Capitol Hill. I've lived in DC for a long time and have lived in both neighborhoods. They are just ... different, and different kinds of people want to live there. Capitol Hill feels quieter and more like a village within a city and many people are connected to The Hill for work and people don't generally come to NW very often. It's too far and annoying so they stay on the Hill.

Adams Morgan and Dupont and U street just have a more gritty and simultaneously wealthy and more chaotic city vibe, and are more integrated into the larger city.

It's just different. Not better! Not "more."

But what you've described IS "more." And that's what we wanted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We really like Maury, near Lincoln Park. Ticks all the boxes you mention and easy commute to Pentagon via 695/395. We also wanted small classes and a tight knit feel and it’s been great. Only downside is the feeder pattern - middle school is fine (people vary on this but the number of people from Maury sending kids there is increasingly significantly each year, so would be even better by the time your kid gets there) but high school is a no for almost everyone.

+1. Neighborhood is wonderful too— feels like a small town but is minutes away from H Street, Union Market, etc. I bike to work downtown in 10 min. Highly recommend!

When we decided to move into the city from the 'burbs this was one of the first neighborhoods we looked at. Our impression was that it may be nice for a short and specific slice of your life but that's IT. Nothing but 30-something white folks pushing expensive strollers while their designer dog tagged along. We were horrified. If we wanted that, we'd stayed in NOVA. We quickly looked elsewhere.

Please take your racism elsewhere. Comment reported. It's 2025, that stuff isn't appreciated anymore loser.

+1/2

The casual use of “white” as a pejorative doesn’t help anyone. It often shuts down conversations by sparking knee-jerk offense without offering much insight. One thing I’ve noticed is that it’s usually white people who describe a place as “too white.” By contrast, Black folks and other people of color are more likely to express concern about the absence of Black people or other POC — in other words, to point out a lack of diversity, not to characterize whiteness itself as a problem.

This difference in framing really matters. When white people casually label something as “too white,” they can unintentionally come off as flippant or antagonistic — and that can trigger backlash from other white people. But here’s the thing: it’s not usually those white folks who bear the brunt of that backlash. It’s people like me — Black people, people of color, our kids — who end up paying the price.

In today’s political climate, a lot of people are just waiting for an excuse to come after us. So when well-meaning white folks casually toss around anti-white framing, it gives those bad-faith actors ammunition. I really need you to not do that.

Don’t make it harder for my sons, for me, for families like ours. Just… stop.

I know plenty of black folks who tell me that certain neighborhoods are "too white."

Racist?

Probably not, because they are likely using “white” as shorthand for a deficit of “cultural” amenities they’d prefer, not a castigation of white people as “bad.”

This of course isn’t a big deal to all black folks. I’m black and don’t care, but have extended family that prefer easy access to culturally black spaces at the neighborhood level.

But it’s still problematic phraseology if used casually in public, because it allows folks (often disingenuously) to scream reverse racism. So, for purely practical reasons, I’d prefer people not use descriptors that suggest a certain modicum of whiteness is “too” much.

But most people (including my wife) don’t really care what I think on this score.

I'm the poster who first said that CH is too "white," and I agree with you. And yes, I'm white. I guess I don't really consider saying a neighborhood is "too white" on a forum such as this is saying it "in public." And when I said it other posters knew exactly what I was talking about. The only disagreement was whether I was being racist in point out the obvious.

Note that I didn't say the neighborhood was just "white." I also said it was largely white women in their 30s pushing expensive strollers with designer dogs at their side. And it IS, at least from my perspective. I don't consider it "racist" to not want to live in a neighborhood that's too much of anything. We didn't want that when we moved into the city. We wanted more diversity in terms of age, race, wealth, dogs -- everything.

The virtue signaling is strong with this one. You are basically saying you want other races to be used as a prop in your own neighborhood so you can feel less bad about yourself.

Ok, so I explained very clearly that it wasn't all about race, but your response focused solely on race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the "too white" poster, and for the record I never said Maury was 20003. I don't know the CH zips codes at all. Another poster responded to my saying that I ended up in 20009 by comparing it to 20003.

All I'm saying, again, is that the first place we looked after deciding to move into the city was CH, including specifically the neighborhood around Lincoln Park, and all I saw was white couples in their 30s and 40s pushing expensive strollers while accompanied by designer dogs. I was like, nope! But maybe that's what OP wants. We wanted more.

I think this vibe is why people are getting offended. Adams Morgan isn't inherently better than Capitol Hill. I've lived in DC for a long time and have lived in both neighborhoods. They are just ... different, and different kinds of people want to live there. Capitol Hill feels quieter and more like a village within a city and many people are connected to The Hill for work and people don't generally come to NW very often. It's too far and annoying so they stay on the Hill.

Adams Morgan and Dupont and U street just have a more gritty and simultaneously wealthy and more chaotic city vibe, and are more integrated into the larger city.

It's just different. Not better! Not "more."

But what you've described IS "more." And that's what we wanted.

It's more of some things, less of others. If my entire picture of life on the Hill was "I walked around Lincoln Park for a couple of hours on a single Sunday afternoon" I too would think Capitol Hill is boring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:+1.

20002 is a huge zip code spanning many neighborhoods (going all the way up to Eckington and Edgewood!) of which the Maury boundary is a tiny sleepy sliver with very few apartment buildings, and mostly rowhomes now occupied by UMC families with small children. The Maury boundary abuts no commercial strips/districts (although that will change with the future RFK development). The vibe absolutely could not be more different than Adams Morgan.

The Maury boundary is within a few blocks of H St.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm the "too white" poster, and for the record I never said Maury was 20003. I don't know the CH zips codes at all. Another poster responded to my saying that I ended up in 20009 by comparing it to 20003.

All I'm saying, again, is that the first place we looked after deciding to move into the city was CH, including specifically the neighborhood around Lincoln Park, and all I saw was white couples in their 30s and 40s pushing expensive strollers while accompanied by designer dogs. I was like, nope! But maybe that's what OP wants. We wanted more.

What a simple life you must lead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the "too white" poster, and for the record I never said Maury was 20003. I don't know the CH zips codes at all. Another poster responded to my saying that I ended up in 20009 by comparing it to 20003.

All I'm saying, again, is that the first place we looked after deciding to move into the city was CH, including specifically the neighborhood around Lincoln Park, and all I saw was white couples in their 30s and 40s pushing expensive strollers while accompanied by designer dogs. I was like, nope! But maybe that's what OP wants. We wanted more.

I think this vibe is why people are getting offended. Adams Morgan isn't inherently better than Capitol Hill. I've lived in DC for a long time and have lived in both neighborhoods. They are just ... different, and different kinds of people want to live there. Capitol Hill feels quieter and more like a village within a city and many people are connected to The Hill for work and people don't generally come to NW very often. It's too far and annoying so they stay on the Hill.

Adams Morgan and Dupont and U street just have a more gritty and simultaneously wealthy and more chaotic city vibe, and are more integrated into the larger city.

It's just different. Not better! Not "more."

But what you've described IS "more." And that's what we wanted.

It's more of some things, less of others. If my entire picture of life on the Hill was "I walked around Lincoln Park for a couple of hours on a single Sunday afternoon" I too would think Capitol Hill is boring.

But we did much more than that. I've also been back there enough times since not moving there to confirm that we made the right decision -- for us. It's just too boring and one-dimensional for us.