What is the appeal of this area? IDGI

[Anonymous]

OP is squatting here like others who came before, without regard to the community. You can do something to improve for the next person or shut the front door!

[Anonymous]

I’ve been here 20 years and the utility lines still bother me, but I’ve accepted that this will never change. It is prohibitively expensive to bury power lines.

And another poster was right, the timeline of the housing also did not lend itself well to attractive architecture, with the amount of housing built in the 50s/60s inside the Beltway.

And yet, I’ll take that over tract housing in Phoenix.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are gorgeous parks and playgrounds all over the place. There are amazing activities and events for families and kids. The museums, events, and shopping are so easy to get to. The shows, concerts, and games are an easy drive and so many venues to choose from. The roads have grassy islands with actual flowers planted in them! There’s so much growth and construction going on. Op, check out the Rust Belt, then come back.

We were back recently visiting a friend and had an extra hour to kill so we tried to go to one of these “gorgeous” parks. There were so many people there wasn’t a parking space! OP’s point about density really hits for me. We relocated to the Midwest and we have lots of parks, and a reasonable number of people go to them any given day. In fact I live next to a park and often it’s just me and my dog walking there. Lovely!

Also while we are far from the ocean, we are 40 minutes from Lake Michigan which has waves and isn’t salty.

[Anonymous]

Northern VA grew quickly and haphazardly after WW2, and mostly as a result of federal employment which did not support luxury housing. As a result, the close in suburbs are some of the least well planned, the housing stock is old and leans smaller in terms of square footage, and the infrastructure, while functional, is not scaled to today's standards. Demand kept prices up for a long time, but it may not hold.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I've brought up many of your points on this board and people refuse to believe there are nicer places -- better weather, less traffic, not as dense and rundown, and not as expensive. I really think people don't travel enough within the U.S. I am OK with this area mostly because I like my job but if I lose the job or decide to do something else, I'll definitely be looking to move.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I've brought up many of your points on this board and people refuse to believe there are nicer places -- better weather, less traffic, not as dense and rundown, and not as expensive. I really think people don't travel enough within the U.S. I am OK with this area mostly because I like my job but if I lose the job or decide to do something else, I'll definitely be looking to move.

I don't agree with this. Lots of people agree. But most US cities aren't better than this. I can think of a lot of resort towns I'd rather be living in, with there being something to do. But as far as major metro areas are concerned, most are pretty much the same song outside of Manhattan.

Better cities: Boston, Chicago, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, Seattle. Also, Portland (both Maine and Oregon), Columbus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I've brought up many of your points on this board and people refuse to believe there are nicer places -- better weather, less traffic, not as dense and rundown, and not as expensive. I really think people don't travel enough within the U.S. I am OK with this area mostly because I like my job but if I lose the job or decide to do something else, I'll definitely be looking to move.

I don't agree with this. Lots of people agree. But most US cities aren't better than this. I can think of a lot of resort towns I'd rather be living in, with there being something to do. But as far as major metro areas are concerned, most are pretty much the same song outside of Manhattan.

ITA. [b] American suburbia outside of major metro areas is pretty much the same with the climate or some aspects of building architecture being the only diff. The same fugly strip malls everywhere and power lines too.[/] There are a few cute town centers (I call them “leisure towns”) in every affluent residential cluster mainly catering to weekend crowd or tourists that are maintained to look quaint to draw people to spend time/money there and get away from the ugliness of everyday errands and job commutes. Unfortunately a lot of these town centers are not for practical everyday living having shortage of businesses people actually need for routine errands. It’s because of car centric lifestyle. PP is on point that the only places you can find practically located businesses on the urban grid is in the major cities dense residential areas. Everything else is built to be accessible by car around vast parking areas and fast roads.

Check out DC proper, it’s very different. And power lines are buried.

Not so in New England, NY, NJ, Chicago.

[Anonymous]

DC lacks culture. Too many transplants, too professional oriented. No good sports scene, food scene, or true arts scene. For fashion, the city scores a 0/10. People are buttoned up and pretty nerdy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been here 20 years and the utility lines still bother me, but I’ve accepted that this will never change. It is prohibitively expensive to bury power lines.

And another poster was right, the timeline of the housing also did not lend itself well to attractive architecture, with the amount of housing built in the 50s/60s inside the Beltway.

And yet, I’ll take that over tract housing in Phoenix.

I used to live in desert SW areas and agree with you. People complaining about soulless sprawl here need to visit tract subdivisions haphazardly built in any thirsty desert state major city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I've brought up many of your points on this board and people refuse to believe there are nicer places -- better weather, less traffic, not as dense and rundown, and not as expensive. I really think people don't travel enough within the U.S. I am OK with this area mostly because I like my job but if I lose the job or decide to do something else, I'll definitely be looking to move.

People on this board are from all over the country and have chosen to live here. I could not wait to get out of flyover country myself. I have traveled extensively throughout the US and have lived in a couple of different states. I love SoCal weather, but we tried it for a year, and I am just not a west coast girl.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC lacks culture. Too many transplants, too professional oriented. No good sports scene, food scene, or true arts scene. For fashion, the city scores a 0/10. People are buttoned up and pretty nerdy.

I disagree about sports. I feel like there is not much else in some of DC burbs, you just have to go a bit further out. It’s travel sports crazy here in every school except maybe DC proper schools? Food scene has been improving and honestly isn’t terrible anymore compared to any other major city. There is Kennedy Center, there are local theaters, tons of museums and major colleges. IDK what you are talking about. It’s not NYC in terms of fashion for sure, but that’s also because it’s not nearly as dense. Fewer people make for more boring fashions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I've brought up many of your points on this board and people refuse to believe there are nicer places -- better weather, less traffic, not as dense and rundown, and not as expensive. I really think people don't travel enough within the U.S. I am OK with this area mostly because I like my job but if I lose the job or decide to do something else, I'll definitely be looking to move.

I don't agree with this. Lots of people agree. But most US cities aren't better than this. I can think of a lot of resort towns I'd rather be living in, with there being something to do. But as far as major metro areas are concerned, most are pretty much the same song outside of Manhattan.

Better cities: Boston, Chicago, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, Seattle. Also, Portland (both Maine and Oregon), Columbus.

Agree with this list, though Boston, Chicago, and Columbus are tough in winter. Would also add San Diego and Denver. I know less about Research Triangle and Austin, but they may be possibilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I've brought up many of your points on this board and people refuse to believe there are nicer places -- better weather, less traffic, not as dense and rundown, and not as expensive. I really think people don't travel enough within the U.S. I am OK with this area mostly because I like my job but if I lose the job or decide to do something else, I'll definitely be looking to move.

I don't agree with this. Lots of people agree. But most US cities aren't better than this. I can think of a lot of resort towns I'd rather be living in, with there being something to do. But as far as major metro areas are concerned, most are pretty much the same song outside of Manhattan.

ITA. [b] American suburbia outside of major metro areas is pretty much the same with the climate or some aspects of building architecture being the only diff. The same fugly strip malls everywhere and power lines too.[/] There are a few cute town centers (I call them “leisure towns”) in every affluent residential cluster mainly catering to weekend crowd or tourists that are maintained to look quaint to draw people to spend time/money there and get away from the ugliness of everyday errands and job commutes. Unfortunately a lot of these town centers are not for practical everyday living having shortage of businesses people actually need for routine errands. It’s because of car centric lifestyle. PP is on point that the only places you can find practically located businesses on the urban grid is in the major cities dense residential areas. Everything else is built to be accessible by car around vast parking areas and fast roads.

Check out DC proper, it’s very different. And power lines are buried.

Not so in New England, NY, NJ, Chicago.

IDK what you are talking about. I lived in NYC for most of my adult life and visited various parts of suburbia. TBH Westchester, LI, NJ reminded me of some parts of Arlington, McLean, and GF. Suburbia in LI, Westchester, NJ has similar terrain, nature and newer housing when it comes to nicer suburbs. There are some cute towns, but majority of homes aren’t walkable to them, so your life there not living walking distance away from main st of these towns will be the same as here. Plus, for daily errands you are likely going to be driving to strip malls there like you do here. you won’t be driving to you quaint main st to grocery/CVS shop, go to a doctor, bank, dry cleaners, beauty salon, etc unless you work there. You will likely drive somewhere with convenient parking. The part of DC area that sucks is that for some suburbs drive to quaint areas is rather far because nearby commercial strips are fugly and new “town centers” will not have any historical charm. Coming from the West Coast though, suburban town centers like Reston, Mosaic, some parts of Tysons are totally adequate

The one thing I do dislike about DC is how far it is from the beaches. If you had ever lived in LA or NYC or Miami it’s annoyingly far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I've brought up many of your points on this board and people refuse to believe there are nicer places -- better weather, less traffic, not as dense and rundown, and not as expensive. I really think people don't travel enough within the U.S. I am OK with this area mostly because I like my job but if I lose the job or decide to do something else, I'll definitely be looking to move.

I don't agree with this. Lots of people agree. But most US cities aren't better than this. I can think of a lot of resort towns I'd rather be living in, with there being something to do. But as far as major metro areas are concerned, most are pretty much the same song outside of Manhattan.

Better cities: Boston, Chicago, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, Seattle. Also, Portland (both Maine and Oregon), Columbus.

Agree with this list, though Boston, Chicago, and Columbus are tough in winter. Would also add San Diego and Denver. I know less about Research Triangle and Austin, but they may be possibilities.

I lived in SF and Seattle, and the only advantage is the beautiful scenery of a different type and great seafood and Asian food. Nothing else really. Weather in DC is better overall across 4 seasons. I hated SF fog, and cold summers and rarely useful beach . Seattle has glorious summers but terrible everything else. Not a fan of drizzle and fog. Traffic is horrible in both too and pubic transit is worse than DC IMHO. Suburbia there isn’t much better at all. I get it when people used to quaint old towns in the NE complain about DC suburbia. But people from the West Coast? B**ch, please You don’t move West for quaint architecture and old world charm Denver and Austin? You gotta be kidding. The only redeeming feature of Denver is mountain range view at the distance, the city itself is rather blah and flat. Never been to Austin and had no desire to looking at the photos and hearing about the weather. Isn’t it like 5 months of the weather everyone here freaks out about during 2 months of DC summer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I've brought up many of your points on this board and people refuse to believe there are nicer places -- better weather, less traffic, not as dense and rundown, and not as expensive. I really think people don't travel enough within the U.S. I am OK with this area mostly because I like my job but if I lose the job or decide to do something else, I'll definitely be looking to move.

I don't agree with this. Lots of people agree. But most US cities aren't better than this. I can think of a lot of resort towns I'd rather be living in, with there being something to do. But as far as major metro areas are concerned, most are pretty much the same song outside of Manhattan.

Better cities: Boston, Chicago, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, Seattle. Also, Portland (both Maine and Oregon), Columbus.

I love Boston but it is grimy as F and has two seasons, Winter and Humid.

Chicago is a real city, I’ll give you that, but it’s a hard city to live with brutal winters.

Pittsburgh? I mean I like it, but that’s extremely much.

San Francisco is a beautiful place to visit but misery to live unless CRAZY wealthy.

Huge fan of Seattle and Portland Or, but unfortunately I’m not a vampire so not seeing the sun for months is a huge drag. Also Portland, drugs, schools, it’s very niche.

Portland ME is a big town, with beaches too cold to swim in and endless winter. But living on a lake would be nice.

Columbus?? Sure. Honestly this may be your best suggestion. For livability it is DC middle of the road status that make it pretty workable. I think Columbus is similar midatlantic style. But further from the ocean.