What is the most overrated area (neighborhood, town, etc) in the DC metropolitan area?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Overrated is relative to the absolute nature of the 'rating.' I.e., hard for a crappy neighborhood to be 'overrated' because it's not rated highly to begin. On the other hand, Georgetown, which is a beautiful area and loved by people that like historic architecture (and are tolerant of row homes ... many are not), has a very high absolute 'rating' and as such is more prone to assertions that it is 'overrated.' I.e., it's actual appeal to many is far less than its reputation.

You're contradicting yourself, and in doing so making my point.

Gtown having a "very high absolute rating" implies that Gtown is liked by many. You then say it's overrated and that its "actual appeal to many is far less than its reputation," as if this is some wisdom beyond impeachment. It's not.

If you're trying to say that "for every generally well-regarded area, there are always many people who don't like that area," then we agree. But this is content without substance.

Wrong.

Assume a widget has a "rating" of 10 as measured by some arbiter of widget quality (the reputation maker) but the totality of potential buyers think that widget is really only an 8, as compared to other widgets. On the other hand a different widget has a rating of 5 by the same arbiter, while the market of potential buyers thinks it's actually a 4. In this case, the first widget - the 10, but really an 8 - is MORE OVERRATED (see: post title) than the second widget.

The degree of "over"rating is relative to the absolute value. No doubt that Georgetown is liked by many ... many more than like lots of other areas ... but if every potential DC buyer were asked whether they believed Georgetown's actual attraction justifies the hype (from e.g., national reputation), those buyers probably would say no. As such, Georgetown is a legitimate candidate for the "most overrated area."

Your undergraduate training in economics, perhaps bolstered by a seminar in logic, is fraying at its ends. I was about to reply along the lines of "Who is this arbiter, what does he use as inputs to his rating technology if not popular acclaim, etc.," but that benefits no one, ourselves included. That you can conceive of a model to rationalize your arguments does not mean your arguments have any worth.

[Anonymous]

If I could afford it I would retire in Georgetown or in Kalorama. With a family though, I prefer in a bit more generaously spaced out neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another cool article about a Lake Barcroft renovation...gorgeous!

http://www.homeanddesign.com/article.asp?article=21297

I don't doubt there are some nice homes but your typical home there looks like this

There's a lot of variety. That type of house is fairly common, and still far more interesting if you're a fan of MCM than some bland Colonial with vinyl siding in a place like Pimmit Hills.

Why do you keep talking about pimmit hills. In fact the homes in pimmit hills are built at the same time period and are more levitville style, but no one tries to give them a fancy name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Overrated is relative to the absolute nature of the 'rating.' I.e., hard for a crappy neighborhood to be 'overrated' because it's not rated highly to begin. On the other hand, Georgetown, which is a beautiful area and loved by people that like historic architecture (and are tolerant of row homes ... many are not), has a very high absolute 'rating' and as such is more prone to assertions that it is 'overrated.' I.e., it's actual appeal to many is far less than its reputation.

You're contradicting yourself, and in doing so making my point.

Gtown having a "very high absolute rating" implies that Gtown is liked by many. You then say it's overrated and that its "actual appeal to many is far less than its reputation," as if this is some wisdom beyond impeachment. It's not.

If you're trying to say that "for every generally well-regarded area, there are always many people who don't like that area," then we agree. But this is content without substance.

Wrong.

Assume a widget has a "rating" of 10 as measured by some arbiter of widget quality (the reputation maker) but the totality of potential buyers think that widget is really only an 8, as compared to other widgets. On the other hand a different widget has a rating of 5 by the same arbiter, while the market of potential buyers thinks it's actually a 4. In this case, the first widget - the 10, but really an 8 - is MORE OVERRATED (see: post title) than the second widget.

The degree of "over"rating is relative to the absolute value. No doubt that Georgetown is liked by many ... many more than like lots of other areas ... but if every potential DC buyer were asked whether they believed Georgetown's actual attraction justifies the hype (from e.g., national reputation), those buyers probably would say no. As such, Georgetown is a legitimate candidate for the "most overrated area."

People leave reviews for widgets after using them. People saying Georgetown is an overrated place to live are generally people who haven't lived here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand the hype around Bloomingdale. It is next to North Capital street which I find dreadful and close to that big cementary with poor public transportation and almost mo bars and restaurants (ok, there is Big Bear). I find Shaw and Ledroit which are right next to Bloomingdale way nicer.

Funny, Bloomingdale resident here who loves our public transportation options and almost never drives.

But what's with all the hate for Georgetown? Once you're away from Wisconsin and M, it's lovely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All of Washington D.C. if you have kids. The lotteries, going to schools halfway across town, all so you can live in "the city" instead of the suburbs. Give me my walkable suburbs, with a few decent restaurants and shops within walking distance, and a school bus stop around the corner any day!

This. Definitely this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Define overrated. I'll add georgetown.

+1. Ugh. Hate it.

I can see hating the corner of Wisconsin and M Streets. But there's much more to it than the shopping strip. And it's pretty wonderful.

yes, if you mean by 'wonderful', walking down the street, minding your own business when you encounter a gaggle of laxbros, one of whom puts his finger in his mouth to wet it and then slides it along your bicep/shoulder as they walk by. *assaultive?wonderful*

Or being the victim of a late night armed robbery. When I worked at GU we got police alerts every day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Overrated is relative to the absolute nature of the 'rating.' I.e., hard for a crappy neighborhood to be 'overrated' because it's not rated highly to begin. On the other hand, Georgetown, which is a beautiful area and loved by people that like historic architecture (and are tolerant of row homes ... many are not), has a very high absolute 'rating' and as such is more prone to assertions that it is 'overrated.' I.e., it's actual appeal to many is far less than its reputation.

You're contradicting yourself, and in doing so making my point.

Gtown having a "very high absolute rating" implies that Gtown is liked by many. You then say it's overrated and that its "actual appeal to many is far less than its reputation," as if this is some wisdom beyond impeachment. It's not.

If you're trying to say that "for every generally well-regarded area, there are always many people who don't like that area," then we agree. But this is content without substance.

Wrong.

Assume a widget has a "rating" of 10 as measured by some arbiter of widget quality (the reputation maker) but the totality of potential buyers think that widget is really only an 8, as compared to other widgets. On the other hand a different widget has a rating of 5 by the same arbiter, while the market of potential buyers thinks it's actually a 4. In this case, the first widget - the 10, but really an 8 - is MORE OVERRATED (see: post title) than the second widget.

The degree of "over"rating is relative to the absolute value. No doubt that Georgetown is liked by many ... many more than like lots of other areas ... but if every potential DC buyer were asked whether they believed Georgetown's actual attraction justifies the hype (from e.g., national reputation), those buyers probably would say no. As such, Georgetown is a legitimate candidate for the "most overrated area."

Your undergraduate training in economics, perhaps bolstered by a seminar in logic, is fraying at its ends. I was about to reply along the lines of "Who is this arbiter, what does he use as inputs to his rating technology if not popular acclaim, etc.," but that benefits no one, ourselves included. That you can conceive of a model to rationalize your arguments does not mean your arguments have any worth.

Ok, this is fun. Please define "most overrated" for me.

Detach yourself from your personal feelings (insecurity) about your neighborhood and point out specifically where the 'model' is flawed. So far, all I've read from you are ad hominem arguments (logic 101) and some crafty prose, despite fairly vacuous arguments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Overrated is relative to the absolute nature of the 'rating.' I.e., hard for a crappy neighborhood to be 'overrated' because it's not rated highly to begin. On the other hand, Georgetown, which is a beautiful area and loved by people that like historic architecture (and are tolerant of row homes ... many are not), has a very high absolute 'rating' and as such is more prone to assertions that it is 'overrated.' I.e., it's actual appeal to many is far less than its reputation.

You're contradicting yourself, and in doing so making my point.

Gtown having a "very high absolute rating" implies that Gtown is liked by many. You then say it's overrated and that its "actual appeal to many is far less than its reputation," as if this is some wisdom beyond impeachment. It's not.

If you're trying to say that "for every generally well-regarded area, there are always many people who don't like that area," then we agree. But this is content without substance.

Wrong.

Assume a widget has a "rating" of 10 as measured by some arbiter of widget quality (the reputation maker) but the totality of potential buyers think that widget is really only an 8, as compared to other widgets. On the other hand a different widget has a rating of 5 by the same arbiter, while the market of potential buyers thinks it's actually a 4. In this case, the first widget - the 10, but really an 8 - is MORE OVERRATED (see: post title) than the second widget.

The degree of "over"rating is relative to the absolute value. No doubt that Georgetown is liked by many ... many more than like lots of other areas ... but if every potential DC buyer were asked whether they believed Georgetown's actual attraction justifies the hype (from e.g., national reputation), those buyers probably would say no. As such, Georgetown is a legitimate candidate for the "most overrated area."

People leave reviews for widgets after using them. People saying Georgetown is an overrated place to live are generally people who haven't lived here.

Same could be said for most of the people chiming in on XYZ neighborhood here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lake barcroft

+1 drove through this area and it looks frozen in time with old homes. Reminds me of an old grand pa talking about his old college days and past years of greatness with nothing new to offer.

-1. People seek it out for the lake and the mid-century homes. If you want to put up some McMansion in the middle of homes no one will miss, you can always move to Pimmit Hills.

I could see the lake as an attraction. But no one covets a mid-century home. That West Coast fad is so 5 years ago.

[Anonymous]

All of Washington, DC.

[Anonymous]

United States

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:United States

You are aware that the entirety of the USA is not encompassed by the borders of the "DC metropolitan area," yes? Where are you from so we can denigrate your entire country?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Overrated is relative to the absolute nature of the 'rating.' I.e., hard for a crappy neighborhood to be 'overrated' because it's not rated highly to begin. On the other hand, Georgetown, which is a beautiful area and loved by people that like historic architecture (and are tolerant of row homes ... many are not), has a very high absolute 'rating' and as such is more prone to assertions that it is 'overrated.' I.e., it's actual appeal to many is far less than its reputation.

You're contradicting yourself, and in doing so making my point.

Gtown having a "very high absolute rating" implies that Gtown is liked by many. You then say it's overrated and that its "actual appeal to many is far less than its reputation," as if this is some wisdom beyond impeachment. It's not.

If you're trying to say that "for every generally well-regarded area, there are always many people who don't like that area," then we agree. But this is content without substance.

Wrong.

Assume a widget has a "rating" of 10 as measured by some arbiter of widget quality (the reputation maker) but the totality of potential buyers think that widget is really only an 8, as compared to other widgets. On the other hand a different widget has a rating of 5 by the same arbiter, while the market of potential buyers thinks it's actually a 4. In this case, the first widget - the 10, but really an 8 - is MORE OVERRATED (see: post title) than the second widget.

The degree of "over"rating is relative to the absolute value. No doubt that Georgetown is liked by many ... many more than like lots of other areas ... but if every potential DC buyer were asked whether they believed Georgetown's actual attraction justifies the hype (from e.g., national reputation), those buyers probably would say no. As such, Georgetown is a legitimate candidate for the "most overrated area."

Your undergraduate training in economics, perhaps bolstered by a seminar in logic, is fraying at its ends. I was about to reply along the lines of "Who is this arbiter, what does he use as inputs to his rating technology if not popular acclaim, etc.," but that benefits no one, ourselves included. That you can conceive of a model to rationalize your arguments does not mean your arguments have any worth.

Ok, this is fun. Please define "most overrated" for me.

Detach yourself from your personal feelings (insecurity) about your neighborhood and point out specifically where the 'model' is flawed. So far, all I've read from you are ad hominem arguments (logic 101) and some crafty prose, despite fairly vacuous arguments.

I was sincere: this may be fun for us (it is), but the others are probably ready to banish our IP addresses. So, I'll be brief.

First, it is not insecurity about my neighborhood. I do not live in Georgetown. I am the commenter (from 04/03/2014 08:29 ) saying that I couldn't afford what I wanted in Gtown.

Your talk of this arbiter as if it exists, let alone that it exists exogenously. I think the best proxy for your magical ratings arbiter is "the market." What does it say? Prices of homes in GTown are high and increasing, regardless of how you cut the data. That says demand is high. That says lots of people want to live in Gtown and are willing to pay the price, which is high relative to other areas (again, regardless of metric). If lots of people were unwilling to pay the price for Gtown, prices would not be so high, so I don't understand what you mean by "people view it as overrated." If they'd viewed it as overrated (here meaning the asking price is too high), then the price wouldn't be so high. That's how markets work. This whole exercise is nonsensical when viewed in terms of an objective criterion of "overrated." The only meaningful interpretation of the discussion is in terms of personal preferences, and the resulting claims are not particularly insightful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lake barcroft

+1 drove through this area and it looks frozen in time with old homes. Reminds me of an old grand pa talking about his old college days and past years of greatness with nothing new to offer.

-1. People seek it out for the lake and the mid-century homes. If you want to put up some McMansion in the middle of homes no one will miss, you can always move to Pimmit Hills.

I could see the lake as an attraction. But no one covets a mid-century home. That West Coast fad is so 5 years ago.

Your faux sophistication is showing. For those who like the style, it was never a fad and it hasn't gone out of style.

You do know that some people dislike Colonials no matter how ubiquitous they are around here, right?