Walkability, house size, etc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, I actually think we have a societal interest in people not living in huge houses and in not walkable communities. We all pay for those people's choices.

We all SHOULD pay for grammar lessons.

True, I believe in funding public education. Sadly, I find that those taking up the most resources (large house, SUV, chopping down trees to build on exurban lots, one hour solo driving commutes, etc.) are most likely to vote against such funding.

Maybe we all be engineers and dont' give a crapo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Grateful I don't know some of the people who post on here....

[Anonymous]

DCUM isn't a very representative forum. It primarily attracts residents of DC and close-in suburbs, who engage in a tremendous amount of group-think about what "people," or at least The People Who Matter, supposedly want.

It also attracts a smaller number of folks who live further out. These folks get annoyed that the DCUM hive-mind says living in a small, old, house in a walkable neighborhood is the epitome of good living, but can't stop reading. They make up for their smaller numbers with the sheer volume of their posts about places like Pimmit Hills, Chantilly and Leesburg.

These two groups battle daily for the hearts and minds of both area residents and potential newcomers. Each day is a new opportunity to explain that Capitol Hill is really extremely safe and very family-friendly; that the best dining to be found outside the Beltway is at Applebee's; that Arne Duncan sends his kids to school in Arlington; and/or that every house built before WW II with less than 3,000 SF is not a Shake Shack, but a Shit Shack.

Not taking any of this very seriously is one key to a happy life.

[Anonymous]

Mmmm...nachos.

Life and let live, people. Walk to your independent restaurant, get fast food drive thru, hide out eating MREs in your shack in the woods. But please keep your judgmental nasty comments to yourself. Why do you care so much about what other people do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DCUM isn't a very representative forum. It primarily attracts residents of DC and close-in suburbs, who engage in a tremendous amount of group-think about what "people," or at least The People Who Matter, supposedly want.

It also attracts a smaller number of folks who live further out. These folks get annoyed that the DCUM hive-mind says living in a small, old, house in a walkable neighborhood is the epitome of good living, but can't stop reading. They make up for their smaller numbers with the sheer volume of their posts about places like Pimmit Hills, Chantilly and Leesburg.

These two groups battle daily for the hearts and minds of both area residents and potential newcomers. Each day is a new opportunity to explain that Capitol Hill is really extremely safe and very family-friendly; that the best dining to be found outside the Beltway is at Applebee's; that Arne Duncan sends his kids to school in Arlington; and/or that every house built before WW II with less than 3,000 SF is not a Shake Shack, but a Shit Shack.

Not taking any of this very seriously is one key to a happy life.

Don't forget that a front facing garage will destroy your life and marriage. Your kids will hate you for looking all snout house.

[Anonymous]

Yay - the photoshop poster is here today! You make my day.

[Anonymous]

NP here. ITA DCUM is NOT representative.

OP, whatever is important to you is what matters. If I listen to these people, I would live in a smelly old house with no furniture. People here are extremely insecure and do NOT want anyone else to have what they think they don't have. Funny thing is, they wouldn't know how to have it anyway.

Pay no mind.

[Anonymous]

People really think "walkability" is not desirable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DCUM isn't a very representative forum. It primarily attracts residents of DC and close-in suburbs, who engage in a tremendous amount of group-think about what "people," or at least The People Who Matter, supposedly want.

It also attracts a smaller number of folks who live further out. These folks get annoyed that the DCUM hive-mind says living in a small, old, house in a walkable neighborhood is the epitome of good living, but can't stop reading. They make up for their smaller numbers with the sheer volume of their posts about places like Pimmit Hills, Chantilly and Leesburg.

These two groups battle daily for the hearts and minds of both area residents and potential newcomers. Each day is a new opportunity to explain that Capitol Hill is really extremely safe and very family-friendly; that the best dining to be found outside the Beltway is at Applebee's; that Arne Duncan sends his kids to school in Arlington; and/or that every house built before WW II with less than 3,000 SF is not a Shake Shack, but a Shit Shack.

Not taking any of this very seriously is one key to a happy life.

I'm glad to know my efforts aren't being wasted. Keep in mind, I've also encouraged people to consider Frederick, Rockville, and Fairfax City.

[Anonymous]

OP, you know sour grapes when you hear it, right?

Some adults are like children. If it is not what they like, they all but have a fit. Shameful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FYI if your home is smaller than 3000 SQRFT and old you are going to make sacrifices to live in the space

seriously, you the most effing obnoxious poster on this forum. get over your obsession with 3000 already!

Not the PP but don't lay it out on that fella just because you're pissed that you have to take your pots and pans out of the oven before firing it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People really think "walkability" is not desirable?

It is just not a factor. I live .25 miles from my kids school, .7 miles to the metro, .8 miles to the pool club, and 1 mile to the grocery and assorted ethnic restaurants. I rarely walk to any of these places. I have a car that I like to drive. It is faster and more convenient to drive. For many of us, whether one could walk just isn't on the radar. If traffic really sucked and most places had no parking, then I would consider that a negative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People really think "walkability" is not desirable?

It is just not a factor. I live .25 miles from my kids school, .7 miles to the metro, .8 miles to the pool club, and 1 mile to the grocery and assorted ethnic restaurants. I rarely walk to any of these places. I have a car that I like to drive. It is faster and more convenient to drive. For many of us, whether one could walk just isn't on the radar. If traffic really sucked and most places had no parking, then I would consider that a negative.

Wow -- I hope this is a troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People really think "walkability" is not desirable?

It is just not a factor. I live .25 miles from my kids school, .7 miles to the metro, .8 miles to the pool club, and 1 mile to the grocery and assorted ethnic restaurants. I rarely walk to any of these places. I have a car that I like to drive. It is faster and more convenient to drive. For many of us, whether one could walk just isn't on the radar. If traffic really sucked and most places had no parking, then I would consider that a negative.

Wow -- I hope this is a troll.

Why? I agree with that poster.

[Anonymous]

What a mean-spirited thread. Congratulations.