Is Langley HS loosing its appeal compared to Mclean?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are cheaper houses in the Langley boundaries. I don't know if this was always the case.

We could not afford any single family homes in McLean's boundaries. There were a large handful of houses that we looked over listings for in the Langley boundaries. We decided that there is little to no appeal to living in Great Falls, and that its cache will go by the wayside as people lean toward more urban living.

You go right on telling yourself that.

Affluent folks are embracing more urban living. This is not something that I need to tell myself - it is a bonafide trend. My DH and I work in DC and Arlington respectively - ain't nobody got time to commute from Great Falls. Is it aesthetically nice? Of course. But at the end of the day, that only counts for so much when you have a decent housing budget.

Interesting. We've seen exactly the opposite trend. Affluent families moving further away from DC in order to have some acreage and privacy. Most people we know work in Reston, McLean, Vienna, Herndon, etc. so commuting to DC is a non-issue for many.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I heard from my kid is that Langley is full of mean and pretentious kids.

Maybe a little status driven - you really can't avoid it since the kids come from families that are among the most successful. Their parents are competitive, so they have competitive kids.

No doubt some elements in this environment is not healthy, but on the whole, it's a great school with great academic achievements. If a kid cannot stand the pressures of a high school like Langley, then he/she is going to have bigger problems in college and life in general.

Being competitive is different from being a jackass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are cheaper houses in the Langley boundaries. I don't know if this was always the case.

We could not afford any single family homes in McLean's boundaries. There were a large handful of houses that we looked over listings for in the Langley boundaries. We decided that there is little to no appeal to living in Great Falls, and that its cache will go by the wayside as people lean toward more urban living.

You go right on telling yourself that.

Affluent folks are embracing more urban living. This is not something that I need to tell myself - it is a bonafide trend. My DH and I work in DC and Arlington respectively - ain't nobody got time to commute from Great Falls. Is it aesthetically nice? Of course. But at the end of the day, that only counts for so much when you have a decent housing budget.

Interesting. We've seen exactly the opposite trend. Affluent families moving further away from DC in order to have some acreage and privacy. Most people we know work in Reston, McLean, Vienna, Herndon, etc. so commuting to DC is a non-issue for many.

I really don't know where to even link to the most credible source of information for this. There is most definitely a surging collective desire to live in walkable neighborhoods. I see it in this region. There is very little to appeal (for many) for the extremely large Great Falls lots, and to live off of country roads that have no sidewalks, and on top of that, to be far away from denser core areas like Arlington and DC. And yes, I am talking about people who have $800k - $1 million to spend on a house.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/kbenfield/why_urban_demographers_are_rig.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are cheaper houses in the Langley boundaries. I don't know if this was always the case.

We could not afford any single family homes in McLean's boundaries. There were a large handful of houses that we looked over listings for in the Langley boundaries. We decided that there is little to no appeal to living in Great Falls, and that its cache will go by the wayside as people lean toward more urban living.

You go right on telling yourself that.

Affluent folks are embracing more urban living. This is not something that I need to tell myself - it is a bonafide trend. My DH and I work in DC and Arlington respectively - ain't nobody got time to commute from Great Falls. Is it aesthetically nice? Of course. But at the end of the day, that only counts for so much when you have a decent housing budget.

Interesting. We've seen exactly the opposite trend. Affluent families moving further away from DC in order to have some acreage and privacy. Most people we know work in Reston, McLean, Vienna, Herndon, etc. so commuting to DC is a non-issue for many.

I really don't know where to even link to the most credible source of information for this. There is most definitely a surging collective desire to live in walkable neighborhoods. I see it in this region. There is very little to appeal (for many) for the extremely large Great Falls lots, and to live off of country roads that have no sidewalks, and on top of that, to be far away from denser core areas like Arlington and DC. And yes, I am talking about people who have $800k - $1 million to spend on a house.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/kbenfield/why_urban_demographers_are_rig.html

Actually the trend is in the opposite direction...the greatest growth is projected even further out than Great Falls in the exurbs
http://www.washingtonian.com/blogs/capitalcomment/real-estate/the-fastest-growing-suburbs-of-washington-are-in-counties-youve-never-heard-of.php

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are cheaper houses in the Langley boundaries. I don't know if this was always the case.

We could not afford any single family homes in McLean's boundaries. There were a large handful of houses that we looked over listings for in the Langley boundaries. We decided that there is little to no appeal to living in Great Falls, and that its cache will go by the wayside as people lean toward more urban living.

You go right on telling yourself that.

Affluent folks are embracing more urban living. This is not something that I need to tell myself - it is a bonafide trend. My DH and I work in DC and Arlington respectively - ain't nobody got time to commute from Great Falls. Is it aesthetically nice? Of course. But at the end of the day, that only counts for so much when you have a decent housing budget.

Interesting. We've seen exactly the opposite trend. Affluent families moving further away from DC in order to have some acreage and privacy. Most people we know work in Reston, McLean, Vienna, Herndon, etc. so commuting to DC is a non-issue for many.

I really don't know where to even link to the most credible source of information for this. There is most definitely a surging collective desire to live in walkable neighborhoods. I see it in this region. There is very little to appeal (for many) for the extremely large Great Falls lots, and to live off of country roads that have no sidewalks, and on top of that, to be far away from denser core areas like Arlington and DC. And yes, I am talking about people who have $800k - $1 million to spend on a house.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/kbenfield/why_urban_demographers_are_rig.html

Actually the trend is in the opposite direction...the greatest growth is projected even further out than Great Falls in the exurbs
http://www.washingtonian.com/blogs/capitalcomment/real-estate/the-fastest-growing-suburbs-of-washington-are-in-counties-youve-never-heard-of.php

The places with the fewest people tend to "grow the fastest" because of the math. If place A has a population of 10,000 and grows by 10,000. It is a much faster growth rate than place B with a population of 100,000 that grew by 30,000. Even though more people chose and moved to place B.

[Anonymous]

It seems like the thread has become a discussion of the relative merits of Arlington and Loudoun Counties that doesn't have much to do with Langley or McLean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seems like the thread has become a discussion of the relative merits of Arlington and Loudoun Counties that doesn't have much to do with Langley or McLean.

Okay, sorry. PP here. From my viewpoint, it is obvious (to me) that they are both excellent schools, and I'd be happy to send my children to either. That aside - I did bring up other factors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like the thread has become a discussion of the relative merits of Arlington and Loudoun Counties that doesn't have much to do with Langley or McLean.

Okay, sorry. PP here. From my viewpoint, it is obvious (to me) that they are both excellent schools, and I'd be happy to send my children to either. That aside - I did bring up other factors.

Added: Also, I never get into these WHICH EXCELLENT SCHOOL IS MOAR EXCELLENTER?!? conversations, but as a recent house hunter, these were my thoughts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like the thread has become a discussion of the relative merits of Arlington and Loudoun Counties that doesn't have much to do with Langley or McLean.

Okay, sorry. PP here. From my viewpoint, it is obvious (to me) that they are both excellent schools, and I'd be happy to send my children to either. That aside - I did bring up other factors.

Added: Also, I never get into these WHICH EXCELLENT SCHOOL IS MOAR EXCELLENTER?!? conversations, but as a recent house hunter, these were my thoughts.

correct your spelling ...

MOAR > MORE

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like the thread has become a discussion of the relative merits of Arlington and Loudoun Counties that doesn't have much to do with Langley or McLean.

Okay, sorry. PP here. From my viewpoint, it is obvious (to me) that they are both excellent schools, and I'd be happy to send my children to either. That aside - I did bring up other factors.

Added: Also, I never get into these WHICH EXCELLENT SCHOOL IS MOAR EXCELLENTER?!? conversations, but as a recent house hunter, these were my thoughts.

correct your spelling ...

MOAR > MORE

Maybe people in NoAr now substitute "moar" for "more." Branding, you know. ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seems like the thread has become a discussion of the relative merits of Arlington and Loudoun Counties that doesn't have much to do with Langley or McLean.

Arlington is the boot scum of langley/mclean, it doesn't belong in the same conversation.

[Anonymous]

im gonna loose my mind over this discushion. Please don't go to Langley.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like the thread has become a discussion of the relative merits of Arlington and Loudoun Counties that doesn't have much to do with Langley or McLean.

Arlington is the boot scum of langley/mclean, it doesn't belong in the same conversation.

Slow day at the office? The McLean HS district has a long border with Yorktown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is only one "o" in "losing". It is a different word with two "o"s.

When did people start spelling "lose" with two "o"s and why do they do it? I see it a lot and I do not get it.

The word "lose" doesn't sound anything like the word "loose" to me. Or do they sound alike in some places? I'm form the Northeast and have never heard these words pronounced the same way.

It's just a typo, don't over analyze it.

No, it's all over the internet. For some reason, people spell lose wrong all the time now.

I even see it in print books now.

It's because oo usually makes the o sound in the word lose (e.g. moose), while o by itself with and e at the end usually makes the long vowel sound (e.g. close). I remember making the "loose" instead of "lose" mistake as a kid and getting slammed by my teacher

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is only one "o" in "losing". It is a different word with two "o"s.

When did people start spelling "lose" with two "o"s and why do they do it? I see it a lot and I do not get it.

The word "lose" doesn't sound anything like the word "loose" to me. Or do they sound alike in some places? I'm form the Northeast and have never heard these words pronounced the same way.

It's just a typo, don't over analyze it.

No, it's all over the internet. For some reason, people spell lose wrong all the time now.

I even see it in print books now.

It's because oo usually makes the o sound in the word lose (e.g. moose), while o by itself with and e at the end usually makes the long vowel sound (e.g. close). I remember making the "loose" instead of "lose" mistake as a kid and getting slammed by my teacher

I see that, but loose has the "s" sound as in moose, while the "s" in lose has a "z" sound. It would make more sense if people misspelled it "looze" rather than loose. And it's a word we learned in early elementary school, so you would think people would just have it memorized.

This is a minor thing, I realize, but I do find it annoying.