NYTimes: College educated workers are leaving DC due to high housing costs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not just cheaper housing. It’s better schools, less crime and fewer homeless people.

Not to mention rural, towns and suburbs have caught up in terms of dining, gyms and other amenities. You no longer need to live in a city for access to these things.

The article doesn't say that college educated workers are leaving DC for rural areas and suburbs. It says they are leaving DC and environs for other cities.

The people in question want to live in a city, they just want to live in a city they can actually afford. They are not moving to Frederick or La Plata County, Maryland. They are moving to Philadelphia, Denver, Minneapolis, Nashville, etc. -- cities with many of the same amenities as DC but cheaper housing and an overall lower cost of living.

+1 it's called tier 2 cities -- smaller density than NYC, LA, but still a city, and more affordable.

Young people generally don't want rural, or small suburb. They want lively, but also affordable. Those second tier cities are way more affordable than the big cities.

They start out affordable, then the get popular and become unaffordable. Once upon a time, Seattle was the affordable alternative to SF. Denver attracted tech from the bay area, now it's one of the most expensive cities in the US. The same goes for Austin. Nashville is undergoing the same thing now.

Yep. Per squre foot, no one should ever again say that Austin or Nashville is statistically "more affordable" than DC. Add to this Portland OR.

The cool little cities get discovered by 20-somethings at blow up.

That said, there's an almost limitless supply of cities in the US, and almost all are more affordable than DC. Kansas City, San Antonio, Manchester NH, St. Paul, Spokane, Albuquerque ....

let's do this, middle class people of Shaw! fan out!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not just cheaper housing. It’s better schools, less crime and fewer homeless people.

Not to mention rural, towns and suburbs have caught up in terms of dining, gyms and other amenities. You no longer need to live in a city for access to these things.

The article doesn't say that college educated workers are leaving DC for rural areas and suburbs. It says they are leaving DC and environs for other cities.

The people in question want to live in a city, they just want to live in a city they can actually afford. They are not moving to Frederick or La Plata County, Maryland. They are moving to Philadelphia, Denver, Minneapolis, Nashville, etc. -- cities with many of the same amenities as DC but cheaper housing and an overall lower cost of living.

+1 it's called tier 2 cities -- smaller density than NYC, LA, but still a city, and more affordable.

Young people generally don't want rural, or small suburb. They want lively, but also affordable. Those second tier cities are way more affordable than the big cities.

They start out affordable, then the get popular and become unaffordable. Once upon a time, Seattle was the affordable alternative to SF. Denver attracted tech from the bay area, now it's one of the most expensive cities in the US. The same goes for Austin. Nashville is undergoing the same thing now.

Yep. Per squre foot, no one should ever again say that Austin or Nashville is statistically "more affordable" than DC. Add to this Portland OR.

The cool little cities get discovered by 20-somethings at blow up.

That said, there's an almost limitless supply of cities in the US, and almost all are more affordable than DC. Kansas City, San Antonio, Manchester NH, St. Paul, Spokane, Albuquerque ....

let's do this, middle class people of Shaw! fan out!

Portland is still fairly affordable even though it's been "hip" for a long time, I'm not sure why. Same with Minneapolis, though I think that's because the winter weather isn't for everyone. That's a big part of what keeps Chicago and Boston more affordable than NY/DC/SF/LA. But Portland doesn't get that cold. Maybe it's smaller and just a bit more insular? You can still buy a nice, small house in downtown Portland, walk/bike distance to center city, for less than 700k. If you're willing to buy a fixer upper, maybe even less than 500k. That's accessible to a lot of college educated professionals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not just cheaper housing. It’s better schools, less crime and fewer homeless people.

Not to mention rural, towns and suburbs have caught up in terms of dining, gyms and other amenities. You no longer need to live in a city for access to these things.

No. I live in a rural town and there is none of the following here or within 90 minutes of me: stores such as Lululemon, Apple, Athleta, Nordstrom, Coach and also Whole Foods, Equinox, Lifetime Fitness, Trader Joe’s, Soulcycle, Justsalad, Sweetgreen and Cava.

Every single one of these things that isn’t edible is available more conveniently online, and my smaller town has a better organic market and much better artisanal restaurants than Sweetgreen and Cava lol.

What smaller town can support an organic market?? This most be a vacation destination. Real rural towns don’t have organic markets, they have a section in Walmart. .

This is just untrue. I lived in a very rural town that had an organic co-op.

You should get out once in a while.

Same situation when I lived in a rural town. It was a co-op. They were blending and bottling green juices before that was even a thing. And to this day I’ve never seen a better bulk bin selection than that rural market had.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not just cheaper housing. It’s better schools, less crime and fewer homeless people.

Not to mention rural, towns and suburbs have caught up in terms of dining, gyms and other amenities. You no longer need to live in a city for access to these things.

No. I live in a rural town and there is none of the following here or within 90 minutes of me: stores such as Lululemon, Apple, Athleta, Nordstrom, Coach and also Whole Foods, Equinox, Lifetime Fitness, Trader Joe’s, Soulcycle, Justsalad, Sweetgreen and Cava.

Every single one of these things that isn’t edible is available more conveniently online, and my smaller town has a better organic market and much better artisanal restaurants than Sweetgreen and Cava lol.

What smaller town can support an organic market?? This most be a vacation destination. Real rural towns don’t have organic markets, they have a section in Walmart. .

This is just untrue. I lived in a very rural town that had an organic co-op.

You should get out once in a while.

Same situation when I lived in a rural town. It was a co-op. They were blending and bottling green juices before that was even a thing. And to this day I’ve never seen a better bulk bin selection than that rural market had.

So why don't you live there anymore?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not just cheaper housing. It’s better schools, less crime and fewer homeless people.

Not to mention rural, towns and suburbs have caught up in terms of dining, gyms and other amenities. You no longer need to live in a city for access to these things.

The article doesn't say that college educated workers are leaving DC for rural areas and suburbs. It says they are leaving DC and environs for other cities.

The people in question want to live in a city, they just want to live in a city they can actually afford. They are not moving to Frederick or La Plata County, Maryland. They are moving to Philadelphia, Denver, Minneapolis, Nashville, etc. -- cities with many of the same amenities as DC but cheaper housing and an overall lower cost of living.

+1 it's called tier 2 cities -- smaller density than NYC, LA, but still a city, and more affordable.

Young people generally don't want rural, or small suburb. They want lively, but also affordable. Those second tier cities are way more affordable than the big cities.

They start out affordable, then the get popular and become unaffordable. Once upon a time, Seattle was the affordable alternative to SF. Denver attracted tech from the bay area, now it's one of the most expensive cities in the US. The same goes for Austin. Nashville is undergoing the same thing now.

Yep. Per squre foot, no one should ever again say that Austin or Nashville is statistically "more affordable" than DC. Add to this Portland OR.

The cool little cities get discovered by 20-somethings at blow up.

That said, there's an almost limitless supply of cities in the US, and almost all are more affordable than DC. Kansas City, San Antonio, Manchester NH, St. Paul, Spokane, Albuquerque ....

let's do this, middle class people of Shaw! fan out!

Portland is still fairly affordable even though it's been "hip" for a long time, I'm not sure why. Same with Minneapolis, though I think that's because the winter weather isn't for everyone. That's a big part of what keeps Chicago and Boston more affordable than NY/DC/SF/LA. But Portland doesn't get that cold. Maybe it's smaller and just a bit more insular? You can still buy a nice, small house in downtown Portland, walk/bike distance to center city, for less than 700k. If you're willing to buy a fixer upper, maybe even less than 500k. That's accessible to a lot of college educated professionals.

Lol, you don't know why? Portland is among the very shitholiest of all the shithole American cities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not just cheaper housing. It’s better schools, less crime and fewer homeless people.

Not to mention rural, towns and suburbs have caught up in terms of dining, gyms and other amenities. You no longer need to live in a city for access to these things.

No. I live in a rural town and there is none of the following here or within 90 minutes of me: stores such as Lululemon, Apple, Athleta, Nordstrom, Coach and also Whole Foods, Equinox, Lifetime Fitness, Trader Joe’s, Soulcycle, Justsalad, Sweetgreen and Cava.

Every single one of these things that isn’t edible is available more conveniently online, and my smaller town has a better organic market and much better artisanal restaurants than Sweetgreen and Cava lol.

What smaller town can support an organic market?? This most be a vacation destination. Real rural towns don’t have organic markets, they have a section in Walmart. .

This is just untrue. I lived in a very rural town that had an organic co-op.

You should get out once in a while.

Same situation when I lived in a rural town. It was a co-op. They were blending and bottling green juices before that was even a thing. And to this day I’ve never seen a better bulk bin selection than that rural market had.

So why don't you live there anymore?

Not PP but because my job is here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not just cheaper housing. It’s better schools, less crime and fewer homeless people.

Not to mention rural, towns and suburbs have caught up in terms of dining, gyms and other amenities. You no longer need to live in a city for access to these things.

The article doesn't say that college educated workers are leaving DC for rural areas and suburbs. It says they are leaving DC and environs for other cities.

The people in question want to live in a city, they just want to live in a city they can actually afford. They are not moving to Frederick or La Plata County, Maryland. They are moving to Philadelphia, Denver, Minneapolis, Nashville, etc. -- cities with many of the same amenities as DC but cheaper housing and an overall lower cost of living.

+1 it's called tier 2 cities -- smaller density than NYC, LA, but still a city, and more affordable.

Young people generally don't want rural, or small suburb. They want lively, but also affordable. Those second tier cities are way more affordable than the big cities.

They start out affordable, then the get popular and become unaffordable. Once upon a time, Seattle was the affordable alternative to SF. Denver attracted tech from the bay area, now it's one of the most expensive cities in the US. The same goes for Austin. Nashville is undergoing the same thing now.

Yep. Per squre foot, no one should ever again say that Austin or Nashville is statistically "more affordable" than DC. Add to this Portland OR.

The cool little cities get discovered by 20-somethings at blow up.

That said, there's an almost limitless supply of cities in the US, and almost all are more affordable than DC. Kansas City, San Antonio, Manchester NH, St. Paul, Spokane, Albuquerque ....

let's do this, middle class people of Shaw! fan out!

Portland is still fairly affordable even though it's been "hip" for a long time, I'm not sure why. Same with Minneapolis, though I think that's because the winter weather isn't for everyone. That's a big part of what keeps Chicago and Boston more affordable than NY/DC/SF/LA. But Portland doesn't get that cold. Maybe it's smaller and just a bit more insular? You can still buy a nice, small house in downtown Portland, walk/bike distance to center city, for less than 700k. If you're willing to buy a fixer upper, maybe even less than 500k. That's accessible to a lot of college educated professionals.

FYI, Boston is now quite a bit more expensive than DC along most measures. Portland, Denver, and Miami metros all have similar or slightly higher median prices per square foot than DC. Austin caught up to DC briefly during the pandemic but has since retreated a bit. Median DC prices per square foot are now only about 20% above the national average.

Source: https://redfin.com/news/data-center

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Young people frequent the cities until they’re about 30-35. Then they move to the suburbs once it’s time to settle down. This is nothing really new.

The middle aged couples with kids who stay in the city to raise their kids to deal with bad schools and crime are truly the selfish ones for wanting to relive their youths when in reality, it’s just sad.

Eh. My Ward 3 neighborhood is packed with Gen X homeowners who wisely moved up the property ladder and stayed in the city and now we live in homes worth $2 million and send the kids to Maret, St. Albans and Gonzaga. We're not up here getting outline tattoos above our elbows and Reliving Our Youths, we're following our kids around to expensive activities like equestrian and lacrosse.

44 yr olds aren't boomers and grannies, so don't even start. And enjoy Charlotte, I know from personal experience that it's livable and nice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Young people frequent the cities until they’re about 30-35. Then they move to the suburbs once it’s time to settle down. This is nothing really new.

The middle aged couples with kids who stay in the city to raise their kids to deal with bad schools and crime are truly the selfish ones for wanting to relive their youths when in reality, it’s just sad.

Truly wealthy people all live in the cities. Sorry you can’t afford that.

Affordability isn’t the issue. Bad schools, lack of green space, and crime are real factors. I don’t want to have to worry about my 14 year old daughter getting stalked by a creep on the metro. No thanks.

People ignoring rising crime in cities to justify how “wealthy” they are and it’s completely laughable.

Every problem that you list goes away if you have enough money

Nope. Money doesn’t magically get rid of the crime. Nor the lack of green space.

Come visit us in far upper NW and behold the parks and trees. Is it Smokey Mountain National Park? ok, you got me there. But so, so green and relatively open for a city

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not just cheaper housing. It’s better schools, less crime and fewer homeless people.

Not to mention rural, towns and suburbs have caught up in terms of dining, gyms and other amenities. You no longer need to live in a city for access to these things.

No. I live in a rural town and there is none of the following here or within 90 minutes of me: stores such as Lululemon, Apple, Athleta, Nordstrom, Coach and also Whole Foods, Equinox, Lifetime Fitness, Trader Joe’s, Soulcycle, Justsalad, Sweetgreen and Cava.

You can get all that stuff in “small” former rust belt cities. And a house in a walkable neighborhood for under a million.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Denver is one hour from Vail. Who wouldn’t want to move there?

Says someone who hasn’t lived in Colorado

Denver is also dirty has heck!

It’s a plains town that somehow tricked everyone into thinking it’s in the mountains!

THIS! omg so much this.

Denver is ... Kansas City. Not knocking KC at all. But it's hilarious how the Amtrak corridor crowd imagines that Denver is that one scene out of Yellowstone or something. Or Sun Valley, or Davos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Young people frequent the cities until they’re about 30-35. Then they move to the suburbs once it’s time to settle down. This is nothing really new.

The middle aged couples with kids who stay in the city to raise their kids to deal with bad schools and crime are truly the selfish ones for wanting to relive their youths when in reality, it’s just sad.

Eh. My Ward 3 neighborhood is packed with Gen X homeowners who wisely moved up the property ladder and stayed in the city and now we live in homes worth $2 million and send the kids to Maret, St. Albans and Gonzaga. We're not up here getting outline tattoos above our elbows and Reliving Our Youths, we're following our kids around to expensive activities like equestrian and lacrosse.

44 yr olds aren't boomers and grannies, so don't even start. And enjoy Charlotte, I know from personal experience that it's livable and nice.

You can do that if you got on the property ladder here in your 20s, sure, and how nice for you. But DC is also full of transplants who move here for jobs and didn't buy property here 10 or 20 years ago. It's the people who aren't sitting on 1.5 million in equity who are getting priced out or moving....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not just cheaper housing. It’s better schools, less crime and fewer homeless people.

Not to mention rural, towns and suburbs have caught up in terms of dining, gyms and other amenities. You no longer need to live in a city for access to these things.

No. I live in a rural town and there is none of the following here or within 90 minutes of me: stores such as Lululemon, Apple, Athleta, Nordstrom, Coach and also Whole Foods, Equinox, Lifetime Fitness, Trader Joe’s, Soulcycle, Justsalad, Sweetgreen and Cava.

You can get all that stuff in “small” former rust belt cities. And a house in a walkable neighborhood for under a million.

I’m the PP you’re replying to. I live in a rural town near a small rust belt city. It and the entire surrounding area lack all the amenities I listed. Nevertheless, I live here for other reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not just cheaper housing. It’s better schools, less crime and fewer homeless people.

Not to mention rural, towns and suburbs have caught up in terms of dining, gyms and other amenities. You no longer need to live in a city for access to these things.

The article doesn't say that college educated workers are leaving DC for rural areas and suburbs. It says they are leaving DC and environs for other cities.

The people in question want to live in a city, they just want to live in a city they can actually afford. They are not moving to Frederick or La Plata County, Maryland. They are moving to Philadelphia, Denver, Minneapolis, Nashville, etc. -- cities with many of the same amenities as DC but cheaper housing and an overall lower cost of living.

+1 it's called tier 2 cities -- smaller density than NYC, LA, but still a city, and more affordable.

Young people generally don't want rural, or small suburb. They want lively, but also affordable. Those second tier cities are way more affordable than the big cities.

They start out affordable, then the get popular and become unaffordable. Once upon a time, Seattle was the affordable alternative to SF. Denver attracted tech from the bay area, now it's one of the most expensive cities in the US. The same goes for Austin. Nashville is undergoing the same thing now.

Yep. Per squre foot, no one should ever again say that Austin or Nashville is statistically "more affordable" than DC. Add to this Portland OR.

The cool little cities get discovered by 20-somethings at blow up.

That said, there's an almost limitless supply of cities in the US, and almost all are more affordable than DC. Kansas City, San Antonio, Manchester NH, St. Paul, Spokane, Albuquerque ....

let's do this, middle class people of Shaw! fan out!

Portland is still fairly affordable even though it's been "hip" for a long time, I'm not sure why. Same with Minneapolis, though I think that's because the winter weather isn't for everyone. That's a big part of what keeps Chicago and Boston more affordable than NY/DC/SF/LA. But Portland doesn't get that cold. Maybe it's smaller and just a bit more insular? You can still buy a nice, small house in downtown Portland, walk/bike distance to center city, for less than 700k. If you're willing to buy a fixer upper, maybe even less than 500k. That's accessible to a lot of college educated professionals.

FYI, Boston is now quite a bit more expensive than DC along most measures. Portland, Denver, and Miami metros all have similar or slightly higher median prices per square foot than DC. Austin caught up to DC briefly during the pandemic but has since retreated a bit. Median DC prices per square foot are now only about 20% above the national average.

Source: https://redfin.com/news/data-center

hon, that's "metro area" not city::city Look up. Read the subject line. We're discussing the District of Columbia here in this thread. the 'Washington metro area' per the Census Bureau includes counties in WV and Pennsylvania, down to Spotysylvania.

Maybe Wellsley homes cost more than those in Shepardstown? Let's agree they do. That's beside the point of this thread, tho

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not just cheaper housing. It’s better schools, less crime and fewer homeless people.

Not to mention rural, towns and suburbs have caught up in terms of dining, gyms and other amenities. You no longer need to live in a city for access to these things.

Yeah the Smithsonian is opening in rural towns and cities nationwide.

I'm a diehard DC native but underfunding of the Smithsonian plus the investment that other museums in smaller cities have done is leveling the playing field. we moved to a smaller midwestern city, hopefully its only for a little while- i want to move back to DC- butttt I've been shocked at how good the various museums, conservatory/symphony and gardens actually are. We did just get a sweet green and there is no pret a manger or blue mercury- we have to drive to a larger city for that - something I whine about to my spouse ALL the time so not having the ability to just pick up perfume while I am TJ's on 14th is something I miss A LOT.. is the inconvenience enough for me to not have a sub $500k Edwardian house walkable to my kids schools, bikable to pretty much everything else we need and saving enough to buy a summer cabin and go on 3-4 major vacations a year plus private school, hit retirement goals plus 529? we are from a 'diverse' background which is also a factor but when I compare everything we have here and what we would trade to move back to DC, despite my nagging feeling of homesickness, its a really tough choice. I am still on teh fence b.c I grew up in DC and my immediate family is there but day to day life is better and if I lived in a suburb- American suburbs are really indistuigashable. There is zero difference in living in a suburb in Raleigh, St. Louis or DC. as you move west, it changes bc of teh landscape and Phoenix, boulder etc are different but this side of the Mississippi the suburbs are all the same.

Where are you? Don’t worry your house will appreciate a lot.

Seriously though, where are you? I'm curious too. These cities are definitely not all the same, and not just because of landscape. But it sounds like you found a good one.

Milwaukee