Watching your friends relocate to the burbs for "schools"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I lived in Brooklyn and moved to the Hill and never have felt this tension at all. I would put a gun to my head if I had to live in Silver Spring. No offense but it is just to dumpy for me. We did have great charter luck though and are planning on staying here long term. And yes, we can afford a great rowhouse in the heart of the Hill because we saved when we were making lots of money in New York. So I guess it just depends on what you can afford and your luck in life. I would probably move VA over MD. The schools are just better and both are equally horrible in my opinion i guess.

You know Silver Spring is huge, right? We initially looked a bit in SS--there are some pretty nice areas there. We were interested in Forest Glen in particular due to the new elementary (Flora Singer). We ended up buying in upper NW to try for the shortest commutes possible with good schools, but still, some parts of SS are perfectly nice neighborhoods. If you live on the Hill, my guess is you haven't ventured too far out of downtown SS, if you've even made it up this far. Here's one nice listing I just found in Woodside Park. Yes, these neighborhoods aren't as "hot" as upper NW, but nice housing stock, and decent school options.

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Silver-Spring/1603-Cedar-View-Ct-20910/home/11112552

+1 To the point of the last couple pages of discussions, you can also get into Silver Spring (not that house, maybe) as a two-fed or two-nonprofit family without either waiting until your 40s to have kids, or getting a bunch of help from your parents with your down payment.

I understand that folks were able to buy on the Hill as young professionals 8 years ago. Many of my friends did so. But at this point it is totally possible to be an adult professional with a decent income and be priced out. Unlike a previous poster, I'm not bitter about that any more than I would be bitter about not being able to afford Park Slope if I were in New York. I made my choice when I decided to have my kids in my 30s and to work in international humanitarian relief.

But all of this goes to the OP, who asks why her friends are moving "to the burbs." The answer is different for everyone, but it's probably a combination of economics + wanting a gifted program for some folks + wanting a clear path to high school for others.

[Anonymous]

it's relaly this simple if you don't get lucky for the lottery for ms there are no decent ms in DC except for the two in upper NW that feed into deal and even those aren't that great

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And I wasn't looking for a 500k place in queens, I was pointing out that they exist. But it's fine, we can all like different things. I'm just not sure why every time different things are discussed on this board it turns into a pissing match.

How else will anonymous DCUMers exert their superiority?

Scary to think that some of these jerks could be people you know IRL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I lived in Brooklyn and moved to the Hill and never have felt this tension at all. I would put a gun to my head if I had to live in Silver Spring. No offense but it is just to dumpy for me. We did have great charter luck though and are planning on staying here long term. And yes, we can afford a great rowhouse in the heart of the Hill because we saved when we were making lots of money in New York. So I guess it just depends on what you can afford and your luck in life. I would probably move VA over MD. The schools are just better and both are equally horrible in my opinion i guess.

You know Silver Spring is huge, right? We initially looked a bit in SS--there are some pretty nice areas there. We were interested in Forest Glen in particular due to the new elementary (Flora Singer). We ended up buying in upper NW to try for the shortest commutes possible with good schools, but still, some parts of SS are perfectly nice neighborhoods. If you live on the Hill, my guess is you haven't ventured too far out of downtown SS, if you've even made it up this far. Here's one nice listing I just found in Woodside Park. Yes, these neighborhoods aren't as "hot" as upper NW, but nice housing stock, and decent school options.

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Silver-Spring/1603-Cedar-View-Ct-20910/home/11112552

+1 To the point of the last couple pages of discussions, you can also get into Silver Spring (not that house, maybe) as a two-fed or two-nonprofit family without either waiting until your 40s to have kids, or getting a bunch of help from your parents with your down payment.

I understand that folks were able to buy on the Hill as young professionals 8 years ago. Many of my friends did so. But at this point it is totally possible to be an adult professional with a decent income and be priced out. Unlike a previous poster, I'm not bitter about that any more than I would be bitter about not being able to afford Park Slope if I were in New York. I made my choice when I decided to have my kids in my 30s and to work in international humanitarian relief.

But all of this goes to the OP, who asks why her friends are moving "to the burbs." The answer is different for everyone, but it's probably a combination of economics + wanting a gifted program for some folks + wanting a clear path to high school for others.

+2.

What a great comment -- thank you PP

[Anonymous]

Agree with the above, although I would caution women against thinking you can start making babies in your 40s. Some of us can. I did, but (and this is significant) I had already made babies. First time baby-making in your 40s is a recipe for fertility treatments and adoption.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I lived in Brooklyn and moved to the Hill and never have felt this tension at all. I would put a gun to my head if I had to live in Silver Spring. No offense but it is just to dumpy for me. We did have great charter luck though and are planning on staying here long term. And yes, we can afford a great rowhouse in the heart of the Hill because we saved when we were making lots of money in New York. So I guess it just depends on what you can afford and your luck in life. I would probably move VA over MD. The schools are just better and both are equally horrible in my opinion i guess.

I think your're a delusional asshole.

Make no mistake, I don't want to live in Silver Spring either, but you're saying you'd put a gun to your head? Really? Because I bet I can come up with some alternatives that are worse for you than living in Silver Spring. Let's see you put your words to the test.

Oh wait! Moving to New Jersey? Having to eat a bologna sandwich? Tolerating someone whose religious or political views don't align with your own? Those are all easier than living in Silver Spring. Go ahead. Show us a movie of you eating a gun. Or... maybe shut up because you're an obnoxious idiot?

BTW, I don't live in Silver Spring, nor do I know anyone who does. I just think you'd be doing all of us a favor if you followed through on your threat. Jackass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree with the above, although I would caution women against thinking you can start making babies in your 40s. Some of us can. I did, but (and this is significant) I had already made babies. First time baby-making in your 40s is a recipe for fertility treatments and adoption.

This is way off-topic, but I can't let this go unaddressed. Many people (like me) have their first babies in their 40s without issue. Certainly, a lot of women have infertility problems as their age increases, but it's still far from everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with the above, although I would caution women against thinking you can start making babies in your 40s. Some of us can. I did, but (and this is significant) I had already made babies. First time baby-making in your 40s is a recipe for fertility treatments and adoption.

This is way off-topic, but I can't let this go unaddressed. Many people (like me) have their first babies in their 40s without issue. Certainly, a lot of women have infertility problems as their age increases, but it's still far from everyone.

NP. I think something like 30% of women have problems conceiving after the age of 35, but you're right, it's not everybody.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with the above, although I would caution women against thinking you can start making babies in your 40s. Some of us can. I did, but (and this is significant) I had already made babies. First time baby-making in your 40s is a recipe for fertility treatments and adoption.

This is way off-topic, but I can't let this go unaddressed. Many people (like me) have their first babies in their 40s without issue. Certainly, a lot of women have infertility problems as their age increases, but it's still far from everyone.

+1

Statistically, a 40 year old woman has a 1 in 5 chance of getting pregnant every single month she tries. Obviously not the fertility most of us have in our 20s, but certainly not automatically relegated to fertility treatments and adoptions.

I know plenty of people who had first children in their 40s. The kids were blessed with parents who had already lived very full lives of their own, were in great financial shape, and were more than ready to commit to being parents.

[Anonymous]

We hated having to leave for better "schools." However, because I was a "teacher" not only was it "easier" to find a suitable "school" for both the kids and myself outside DC, we could no longer "afford" it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with the above, although I would caution women against thinking you can start making babies in your 40s. Some of us can. I did, but (and this is significant) I had already made babies. First time baby-making in your 40s is a recipe for fertility treatments and adoption.

This is way off-topic, but I can't let this go unaddressed. Many people (like me) have their first babies in their 40s without issue. Certainly, a lot of women have infertility problems as their age increases, but it's still far from everyone.

+1

Statistically, a 40 year old woman has a 1 in 5 chance of getting pregnant every single month she tries. Obviously not the fertility most of us have in our 20s, but certainly not automatically relegated to fertility treatments and adoptions.

I know plenty of people who had first children in their 40s. The kids were blessed with parents who had already lived very full lives of their own, were in great financial shape, and were more than ready to commit to being parents.

Can you back that up? I thought that was the probability for a younger woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with the above, although I would caution women against thinking you can start making babies in your 40s. Some of us can. I did, but (and this is significant) I had already made babies. First time baby-making in your 40s is a recipe for fertility treatments and adoption.

This is way off-topic, but I can't let this go unaddressed. Many people (like me) have their first babies in their 40s without issue. Certainly, a lot of women have infertility problems as their age increases, but it's still far from everyone.

+1

Statistically, a 40 year old woman has a 1 in 5 chance of getting pregnant every single month she tries. Obviously not the fertility most of us have in our 20s, but certainly not automatically relegated to fertility treatments and adoptions.

I know plenty of people who had first children in their 40s. The kids were blessed with parents who had already lived very full lives of their own, were in great financial shape, and were more than ready to commit to being parents.

Can you back that up? I thought that was the probability for a younger woman.

I was told a 5% chance at 40, not 1 in 5.

[Anonymous]

I would put a gun to my head if I had to live in Silver Spring.

l love it when posters say something like this and then say "no offense". Um you said something offensive so you should just claim it. As another poster wrote Silver Spring is huge and while I am happy in my part I understand that different people want different things. It is ok to want to live in different areas. I wouldn't want to live in NYC because for me it is too big and overwhelming but, I see the attraction and understand why people want to live there. I like to visit. There are parts of Silver Spring I wouldn't chose to live but, I also wouldn't want to commit suicide if I had to.

[Anonymous]

Look, the fertility talk wasn't meant to disparage anyone who waits. But choices have consequences. The decision to have kids younger, whether just because you want to or because you are worried about fertility issues, often goes hand-in-hand with not being able to afford a $1m+ house on the Hill, in Kalorama, or anywhere else.

It's not a dig at folks who make one choice or the other, but it might help explain why some folks are able to afford to stay in the city and others are not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with the above, although I would caution women against thinking you can start making babies in your 40s. Some of us can. I did, but (and this is significant) I had already made babies. First time baby-making in your 40s is a recipe for fertility treatments and adoption.

This is way off-topic, but I can't let this go unaddressed. Many people (like me) have their first babies in their 40s without issue. Certainly, a lot of women have infertility problems as their age increases, but it's still far from everyone.

+1

Statistically, a 40 year old woman has a 1 in 5 chance of getting pregnant every single month she tries. Obviously not the fertility most of us have in our 20s, but certainly not automatically relegated to fertility treatments and adoptions.

I know plenty of people who had first children in their 40s. The kids were blessed with parents who had already lived very full lives of their own, were in great financial shape, and were more than ready to commit to being parents.

The timely article on CNN today says less than 1% chance every month for women over 40.

Can you back that up? I thought that was the probability for a younger woman.

I was told a 5% chance at 40, not 1 in 5.