Is suburban living considered a failure?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Suburban-like while still in city is the pinnacle of living. Greenery, trees, 2000 sq ft+ of living space....but only a 10-15 minute commute to your downtown office.

So yes, suburban with a 30+ minute commute is a failure.

+1

Nobody in my suburban neighborhood works in the city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Suburban-like while still in city is the pinnacle of living. Greenery, trees, 2000 sq ft+ of living space....but only a 10-15 minute commute to your downtown office.

So yes, suburban with a 30+ minute commute is a failure.

This is just weaponizing zoning for your benefit. One step below being a crooked oligarch

Cope.

*tosses a wooden nickel in your general direction while avoiding eye contact*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Suburban-like while still in city is the pinnacle of living. Greenery, trees, 2000 sq ft+ of living space....but only a 10-15 minute commute to your downtown office.

So yes, suburban with a 30+ minute commute is a failure.

I live in the suburbs one mile from my office and WFH 4 days a week. Heaven.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Suburban-like while still in city is the pinnacle of living. Greenery, trees, 2000 sq ft+ of living space....but only a 10-15 minute commute to your downtown office.

So yes, suburban with a 30+ minute commute is a failure.

I live in the suburbs one mile from my office and WFH 4 days a week. Heaven.

Yeah none of us suburbanites are going downtime and many of us don’t go into an office at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Suburban-like while still in city is the pinnacle of living. Greenery, trees, 2000 sq ft+ of living space....but only a 10-15 minute commute to your downtown office.

So yes, suburban with a 30+ minute commute is a failure.

This is just weaponizing zoning for your benefit. One step below being a crooked oligarch

Cope.

*tosses a wooden nickel in your general direction while avoiding eye contact*

You’ll get the guillotine first in the upcoming Communist Revolution

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The great majority of Americans live in the suburbs. Rich, poor, middle class.

What are you trying to imply? A lot of DC is quite suburban-like in vibes and in other cities higher density areas exist in the suburbs while lower density areas exist inside the city limits (like NYC).

I think this thread is a direct response to the "Is living in a condo considered a failure?" thread from earlier in the week

Of course it is not a failure but people like to get competitive about this stuff and likely the same people who claimed living in a condo is a failure will be quite defensive about the idea that living in the suburbs could be a failure

None of this is "a failure"

Op here. That is exactly what it was. I didn’t expect so many passionate responses so fast. Funny how that worked out.

No one is defensive, they are just saying your universal assumption is incorrect. You call living in a suburb is a failure. People are saying it is not because they live in suburbs and have not failed. They may have failed to live up to your socialist collective ideology. That isn't a failure, that is a not living to your preferences.

Not all suburbs are a disaster. Some of the Maryland ones are quite nice. The Virginia ones should be razed though.

I go weeks without even leaving my Loudoun zip code. The only traffic I ever see is when I need to go to Arlington or DC, which is thankfully rare. My 5,000sf house cost $600k in 2013 and I have a 2.5% interest rate. #winning.

Sounds... great.

*smirk*

DP. Smirk all you want, what Loudoun poster describes IS great. I have the Fairfax County version of it, also work from home and rarely leave my zip code. It is wonderful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The great majority of Americans live in the suburbs. Rich, poor, middle class.

What are you trying to imply? A lot of DC is quite suburban-like in vibes and in other cities higher density areas exist in the suburbs while lower density areas exist inside the city limits (like NYC).

I think this thread is a direct response to the "Is living in a condo considered a failure?" thread from earlier in the week

Of course it is not a failure but people like to get competitive about this stuff and likely the same people who claimed living in a condo is a failure will be quite defensive about the idea that living in the suburbs could be a failure

None of this is "a failure"

Op here. That is exactly what it was. I didn’t expect so many passionate responses so fast. Funny how that worked out.

No one is defensive, they are just saying your universal assumption is incorrect. You call living in a suburb is a failure. People are saying it is not because they live in suburbs and have not failed. They may have failed to live up to your socialist collective ideology. That isn't a failure, that is a not living to your preferences.

Not all suburbs are a disaster. Some of the Maryland ones are quite nice. The Virginia ones should be razed though.

I go weeks without even leaving my Loudoun zip code. The only traffic I ever see is when I need to go to Arlington or DC, which is thankfully rare. My 5,000sf house cost $600k in 2013 and I have a 2.5% interest rate. #winning.

Sounds... great.

*smirk*

DP. Smirk all you want, what Loudoun poster describes IS great. I have the Fairfax County version of it, also work from home and rarely leave my zip code. It is wonderful.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Suburban-like while still in city is the pinnacle of living. Greenery, trees, 2000 sq ft+ of living space....but only a 10-15 minute commute to your downtown office.

So yes, suburban with a 30+ minute commute is a failure.

I live in the suburbs one mile from my office and WFH 4 days a week. Heaven.

Other than the crippling debt, sadness, traffic, loneliness and soulless living. TOTAL heaven.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The great majority of Americans live in the suburbs. Rich, poor, middle class.

What are you trying to imply? A lot of DC is quite suburban-like in vibes and in other cities higher density areas exist in the suburbs while lower density areas exist inside the city limits (like NYC).

I think this thread is a direct response to the "Is living in a condo considered a failure?" thread from earlier in the week

Of course it is not a failure but people like to get competitive about this stuff and likely the same people who claimed living in a condo is a failure will be quite defensive about the idea that living in the suburbs could be a failure

None of this is "a failure"

Op here. That is exactly what it was. I didn’t expect so many passionate responses so fast. Funny how that worked out.

No one is defensive, they are just saying your universal assumption is incorrect. You call living in a suburb is a failure. People are saying it is not because they live in suburbs and have not failed. They may have failed to live up to your socialist collective ideology. That isn't a failure, that is a not living to your preferences.

Not all suburbs are a disaster. Some of the Maryland ones are quite nice. The Virginia ones should be razed though.

I go weeks without even leaving my Loudoun zip code. The only traffic I ever see is when I need to go to Arlington or DC, which is thankfully rare. My 5,000sf house cost $600k in 2013 and I have a 2.5% interest rate. #winning.

Sounds... great.

*smirk*

DP. Smirk all you want, what Loudoun poster describes IS great. I have the Fairfax County version of it, also work from home and rarely leave my zip code. It is wonderful.

Sounds like a nightmare. Fairfax is the literal armpit of the world. Why don't you just move to a real suburb like New Jersey?

[Anonymous]

Definitely not. I don’t think suburban or city living is inherently considered a failure by most but the standard of living would be.

I would not consider someone who lives in a chic penthouse apartment in a city near cool restaurants, museums, etc a failure or someone living in a stately home on a quiet road surrounded by well maintained parks and good schools a failure.

I might prefer one over the other, personally, but clearly there are very good reasons to choice both options and it’s a matter of preference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Definitely not. I don’t think suburban or city living is inherently considered a failure by most but the standard of living would be.

I would not consider someone who lives in a chic penthouse apartment in a city near cool restaurants, museums, etc a failure or someone living in a stately home on a quiet road surrounded by well maintained parks and good schools a failure.

I might prefer one over the other, personally, but clearly there are very good reasons to choice both options and it’s a matter of preference.

You described two different city scenarios...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Suburban-like while still in city is the pinnacle of living. Greenery, trees, 2000 sq ft+ of living space....but only a 10-15 minute commute to your downtown office.

So yes, suburban with a 30+ minute commute is a failure.

I live in the suburbs one mile from my office and WFH 4 days a week. Heaven.

Other than the crippling debt, sadness, traffic, loneliness and soulless living. TOTAL heaven.

Do people that live in cities not have mortgages, depression, traffic, etc.? Are these things the purview of suburbanites?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Definitely not. I don’t think suburban or city living is inherently considered a failure by most but the standard of living would be.

I would not consider someone who lives in a chic penthouse apartment in a city near cool restaurants, museums, etc a failure or someone living in a stately home on a quiet road surrounded by well maintained parks and good schools a failure.

I might prefer one over the other, personally, but clearly there are very good reasons to choice both options and it’s a matter of preference.

You described two different city scenarios...

Serious question. Where does one find a "stately home on a quiet road surrounded by well maintained parks and good scools" in DC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Suburban-like while still in city is the pinnacle of living. Greenery, trees, 2000 sq ft+ of living space....but only a 10-15 minute commute to your downtown office.

So yes, suburban with a 30+ minute commute is a failure.

I live in the suburbs one mile from my office and WFH 4 days a week. Heaven.

Other than the crippling debt, sadness, traffic, loneliness and soulless living. TOTAL heaven.

Jealous?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Definitely not. I don’t think suburban or city living is inherently considered a failure by most but the standard of living would be.

I would not consider someone who lives in a chic penthouse apartment in a city near cool restaurants, museums, etc a failure or someone living in a stately home on a quiet road surrounded by well maintained parks and good schools a failure.

I might prefer one over the other, personally, but clearly there are very good reasons to choice both options and it’s a matter of preference.

You described two different city scenarios...

Serious question. Where does one find a "stately home on a quiet road surrounded by well maintained parks and good scools" in DC?

Literally all of northwest? Heard of Rock Creek Park? The National Mall? St. Albans?

But, yeah, living in a ticky tack hellhole and making payments on like eight suburbans and sending your kids to some school for yokels and brats in Fairfax, boy, that's the dream.