I haven't figured out how people raise children in DC

[Anonymous]

OP, I've been thinking about you since this thread began. I'm one of the satisfied city folk but I realize that one reason I'm satisfied is because my kid is a teenager and dh and I are making good money now that we're much further along in our careers. It was a lot harder when we were first out of school with massive debt, long commutes, and dd was a toddler. And we had no family to help us in a town (not DC) where we didn't know very many people.

I hope you can find a solution that works for you but hang in there - it does get easier as the kids get older. Good luck!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Capitol Hill is the BOMB! We love, love, love our relatively spacious open-plan 3 bed rowhouse with a nice-sized backyard, commute (25 minutes walking door to door) to interesting jobs, our stumbling distance neighborhood park, and the many restaurants and shops within walking distance. And, two GS 15s make plenty of money to send our one child to private school if we decide we're unhappy with our well-regarded (walking distance) public elementary.

Okay, we're very lucky - I admit it! And, a big negative for us is the lack of any family nearer than a lengthy plane ride away . . .

I think it's a shame that people limit themselves to one child so they can live in a small house or apartment in an over-priced area and afford private school if necessary. Having siblings is a good thing for so many reasons. Most of the folks I know who decided to "stop at one" did so because they're not willing to give up anything for their kids, rather than because they think it's the best environment for a child. Not criticizing. Just keeping in real.

And I think it's a shame that you are so stupid, and self-righteous to boot. "Most of the folks I know" who decided to stop at one did so for very sound, very personal reasons that are nobody else's business. Why don't you just stick to hauling your 8 kids around in an SUV in your plastic suburb in your oh-so "real" and enlightened life??

Ouch! I guess that post hit a little too close to home, eh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Capitol Hill is the BOMB! We love, love, love our relatively spacious open-plan 3 bed rowhouse with a nice-sized backyard, commute (25 minutes walking door to door) to interesting jobs, our stumbling distance neighborhood park, and the many restaurants and shops within walking distance. And, two GS 15s make plenty of money to send our one child to private school if we decide we're unhappy with our well-regarded (walking distance) public elementary.

Okay, we're very lucky - I admit it! And, a big negative for us is the lack of any family nearer than a lengthy plane ride away . . .

Uh . . yeah. Sure. Except there is no such thing as a spacious rowhouse on Capitol Hill. If you mean spacious relative to a one bedroom apartment, then OK.
A couple of friends of ours sold their modest sized, but comfortable SF home in Silver Spring to buy a townhouse on Capital Hill. I admit that I was shocked at how little space they had relative to their other house. After about a year, they adopted and moved out to 'burbs for the public schools.

Like an earlier poster said, it all depends on what makes you happy. I'm not sure I could ever be truly happy in a house of less than 3,000 sq. ft. Those smaller houses are just too suffocating.

What's amusing about this post is, I'm sure you think you're needling the city-dwellers who are reading this. But there's certainly no jealousy here. I learned a long time ago that the more spiritually impoverished and aesthetically degraded the neighborhood, the bigger you want your house to be. If you're living in a suburban cul-de-sac, it makes sense you'd want a massive house.

That's an amusing idea. Kinda like assuming that everyone who has a fast, flashy car is overcompensating for some personal deficiency. But as it happens, some folks want performnace cars because they really enjoy the experience of driving. And some folks want a big house because they enjoy the open space in their homes. Having lived in Manhattan, London, DC and the 'burbs, I can assure you that you can't judge the quality of the people in a neighborhood by the size of the houses there. Silly notion that you could.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good grief, what is up with this super competition between city dwellers and sububanites!?? Stop it already. It's like high school up in here! If you like the city, great. If you like being in the burbs, wonderful. Stop bashing each other- we're all different so we're going to like different things. City vs. Burbs- whatever you decide, it doesn't make you you better, smarter, richer, happier than the other person who chose a different path.

I agree with you, but I am curious-- do you see it as "bashing" suburbs when folks nominate "inner suburbian" neighborhoods (such as Brookland) as great places to raise kids in DC? I think it's pretty interesting and would like about other "not-so hyped" nabes. Any other "sleepy suburbs" that folks have stumbled upon that are actually in DC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: While this may be true, the relative value of exurban homes is going to continue to tank in comparison with urban and close-in houses. This is inevitable as the price of energy continues to rise (gas and heating/cooling). Add to this the projected population growth for the DC region, and it's quite likely that the value of that paid-off cheap house in the 'burbs is going to end up looking like a paid-off house in Trinidad in the early 80s. Having a house that's paid off is a lot less attractive when that house is in a neighborhood that's generally not livable.

That's way too much doom and gloom. Much of the region's job growth now occurs in the 'burbs, rather than downtown. People looking to work near businesses off of 270 or in Fairfax already find that living there places them "close in" to their jobs. The pace of population growth in the 'burbs is projected to continue to outpace the growth rate in DC. The arrival of thousand of new residents due to the BRIC base realignment will only add more demand to the 'burbs North of DC. All of the counties likely to be affected, Anne Arundel, Prince George's, Howard, are looking for money to fund improvements to deal with the anticipated increases in their populations. And many of DC's exurbs are also Baltimore's suburbs of choice. One of my neighbors is a doctor at a hospital in Baltimore. His wife is a doctor in DC. Sure there will always be a premium for certain areas close in to DC, but there are also premium locations within suburbs that have become employment centers in their own rights. The scenario you describe may be more accurate for exurbs outside of Las Vegas where there's really nothing outside the city to provide substantial employment, but I don't see the same scenario playing out in DC's exurbs. More likely we'll see more public transportation reaching out further and further. We're seeing that now with the inexorable extension of Metro.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: While this may be true, the relative value of exurban homes is going to continue to tank in comparison with urban and close-in houses. This is inevitable as the price of energy continues to rise (gas and heating/cooling). Add to this the projected population growth for the DC region, and it's quite likely that the value of that paid-off cheap house in the 'burbs is going to end up looking like a paid-off house in Trinidad in the early 80s. Having a house that's paid off is a lot less attractive when that house is in a neighborhood that's generally not livable.

That's way too much doom and gloom. Much of the region's job growth now occurs in the 'burbs, rather than downtown. People looking to work near businesses off of 270 or in Fairfax already find that living there places them "close in" to their jobs. The pace of population growth in the 'burbs is projected to continue to outpace the growth rate in DC. The arrival of thousand of new residents due to the BRIC base realignment will only add more demand to the 'burbs North of DC. All of the counties likely to be affected, Anne Arundel, Prince George's, Howard, are looking for money to fund improvements to deal with the anticipated increases in their populations. And many of DC's exurbs are also Baltimore's suburbs of choice. One of my neighbors is a doctor at a hospital in Baltimore. His wife is a doctor in DC. Sure there will always be a premium for certain areas close in to DC, but there are also premium locations within suburbs that have become employment centers in their own rights. The scenario you describe may be more accurate for exurbs outside of Las Vegas where there's really nothing outside the city to provide substantial employment, but I don't see the same scenario playing out in DC's exurbs. More likely we'll see more public transportation reaching out further and further. We're seeing that now with the inexorable extension of Metro.

Again, we'll see as fuel prices go up over $5/gallon and that population growth in the suburbs leads to a non-linear increase in congestion. Think traffic can't get any worse? Five or ten years from now it'll make today look like an easy motoring paradise. That puts pressure on more and more of those who can to move to the closer-in suburbs and the city. That means more poor folks moving to the suburbs (population growth, anyone?). Which means a greater and greater strain on services. Which means the cities look comparatively even more attractive. Things snowball.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good grief, what is up with this super competition between city dwellers and sububanites!?? Stop it already. It's like high school up in here! If you like the city, great. If you like being in the burbs, wonderful. Stop bashing each other- we're all different so we're going to like different things. City vs. Burbs- whatever you decide, it doesn't make you you better, smarter, richer, happier than the other person who chose a different path.

Oh chill out already. People are just having fun comparing their choices to the choices other people have made. You know how DC is. Everything becomes a competition; even how we choose to pursue happiness. Plus folks in this town gage how content they think they should be by how much less content people who don't have what they have are. It's all about social position, sense of accomplishment and behaving badly with relative anonymity and no consequences. Face to face, we're all just the nicest people you'd ever want to meet!

[Anonymous]

I know many people that live within the District that drive very fancy cars and have huge houses and a number of them have self esteem issues that manifest in their possessions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Again, we'll see as fuel prices go up over $5/gallon and that population growth in the suburbs leads to a non-linear increase in congestion. Think traffic can't get any worse? Five or ten years from now it'll make today look like an easy motoring paradise. That puts pressure on more and more of those who can to move to the closer-in suburbs and the city. That means more poor folks moving to the suburbs (population growth, anyone?). Which means a greater and greater strain on services. Which means the cities look comparatively even more attractive. Things snowball.

The only reason to move closer in is if the jobs are also closer in. If job growth continues to be greater in the 'burbs, then moving closer to the city doesn't make much sense. For companies looking to grow, unless they need to be in DC, the 'burbs are a better choice. So there will be more inter-suburb commuting. I think you'll see better regional coordination of transportation policies and more concentrated commercial development around Metro stations. If gas prices stay above $5/gallon, you'll see more support for public transportation and far fewer gas guzzlers. But so long as the best public schools are in the 'burbs, that's where most people with kids will want to live and that's where companies will want to locate and grow.

[Anonymous]

f job growth continues to be greater in the 'burbs, then moving closer to the city doesn't make much sense.

Lot of folks have lost a lot throughout history betting that things would always remain the same:

http://streetsblog.net/2011/06/01/suburban-office-parks-are-losing-their-beige-tinted-shimmer/

Suburb-to-suburb commuting is just about dead; already you can barely get from Silver Spring to Rockville in any reasonable amount of time. If population growth continues as predicted, suburban roads will be parking lots. "Regional coordination of transportation policies" is mere hand-waving. At the end of the day, at a certain point of population growth, the hub-and-spoke model is the only one that can work. Which is why, aside from a few industries with captive workforces and politically-driven forces making decisions (ie BRAC) companies are moving back into the urban core.

As far as the school question: the "best public schools" are a function of socioeconomic class. The poor are moving out of DC; in 10-15 years it'll be a largely upper-middle class enclave. The regional school picture will be radically different by that time. These trends are self-amplifying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Capitol Hill is the BOMB! We love, love, love our relatively spacious open-plan 3 bed rowhouse with a nice-sized backyard, commute (25 minutes walking door to door) to interesting jobs, our stumbling distance neighborhood park, and the many restaurants and shops within walking distance. And, two GS 15s make plenty of money to send our one child to private school if we decide we're unhappy with our well-regarded (walking distance) public elementary.

Okay, we're very lucky - I admit it! And, a big negative for us is the lack of any family nearer than a lengthy plane ride away . . .

Uh . . yeah. Sure. Except there is no such thing as a spacious rowhouse on Capitol Hill. If you mean spacious relative to a one bedroom apartment, then OK.
A couple of friends of ours sold their modest sized, but comfortable SF home in Silver Spring to buy a townhouse on Capital Hill. I admit that I was shocked at how little space they had relative to their other house. After about a year, they adopted and moved out to 'burbs for the public schools.

Like an earlier poster said, it all depends on what makes you happy. I'm not sure I could ever be truly happy in a house of less than 3,000 sq. ft. Those smaller houses are just too suffocating.

What's amusing about this post is, I'm sure you think you're needling the city-dwellers who are reading this. But there's certainly no jealousy here. I learned a long time ago that the more spiritually impoverished and aesthetically degraded the neighborhood, the bigger you want your house to be. If you're living in a suburban cul-de-sac, it makes sense you'd want a massive house.

Do you realize that this description fits quite a few neighborhoods in the District proper?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Capitol Hill is the BOMB! We love, love, love our relatively spacious open-plan 3 bed rowhouse with a nice-sized backyard, commute (25 minutes walking door to door) to interesting jobs, our stumbling distance neighborhood park, and the many restaurants and shops within walking distance. And, two GS 15s make plenty of money to send our one child to private school if we decide we're unhappy with our well-regarded (walking distance) public elementary.

Okay, we're very lucky - I admit it! And, a big negative for us is the lack of any family nearer than a lengthy plane ride away . . .

Uh . . yeah. Sure. Except there is no such thing as a spacious rowhouse on Capitol Hill. If you mean spacious relative to a one bedroom apartment, then OK.
A couple of friends of ours sold their modest sized, but comfortable SF home in Silver Spring to buy a townhouse on Capital Hill. I admit that I was shocked at how little space they had relative to their other house. After about a year, they adopted and moved out to 'burbs for the public schools.

Like an earlier poster said, it all depends on what makes you happy. I'm not sure I could ever be truly happy in a house of less than 3,000 sq. ft. Those smaller houses are just too suffocating.

What's amusing about this post is, I'm sure you think you're needling the city-dwellers who are reading this. But there's certainly no jealousy here. I learned a long time ago that the more spiritually impoverished and aesthetically degraded the neighborhood, the bigger you want your house to be. If you're living in a suburban cul-de-sac, it makes sense you'd want a massive house.

Do you realize that this description fits quite a few neighborhoods in the District proper?

I think that point is arguable; I'm assuming you're referring to some housing project like Barry Farm or Potomac Gardens, but even these places have a real sense of community, unlike the vast majority of places we've thrown up since the mid-sixties. But at least you're only a five minute CaBi ride away from somewhere nice. Plus you *can* ride your bike from Point A to Point B without being mowed down by an endless torrent of streaming car traffic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

f job growth continues to be greater in the 'burbs, then moving closer to the city doesn't make much sense.

Lot of folks have lost a lot throughout history betting that things would always remain the same:

http://streetsblog.net/2011/06/01/suburban-office-parks-are-losing-their-beige-tinted-shimmer/

Suburb-to-suburb commuting is just about dead; already you can barely get from Silver Spring to Rockville in any reasonable amount of time. If population growth continues as predicted, suburban roads will be parking lots. "Regional coordination of transportation policies" is mere hand-waving. At the end of the day, at a certain point of population growth, the hub-and-spoke model is the only one that can work. Which is why, aside from a few industries with captive workforces and politically-driven forces making decisions (ie BRAC) companies are moving back into the urban core. As far as the school question: the "best public schools" are a function of socioeconomic class. The poor are moving out of DC; in 10-15 years it'll be a largely upper-middle class enclave. The regional school picture will be radically different by that time. These trends are self-amplifying.

LA doesn't seem to fit the hub and spoke model. It's a sprawling mass of interconnected cities with the "down town" containing a relatively small part of the commercial space. And I agree that isolated, soulless office parks are going out of fashion quickly, but they're being replaced by the creation of suburban downtowns with multi-use spaces that people find enjoyable as work and living spaces. See Reston Town Center and Maple Lawn in Howard County. I can't really see biotech execs paying a premium to live in DC so they can commute out 270 to their jobs when they can have more space and an easier commute living closer to where they work. Likewise, I can't see all those defense contractor execs moving from the areas out towards Dulles to move closer in so they can have longer commutes. DC will remain the center of federal government and those that make their living being close to it - law firms, lobbyists, think tanks. media to some degree. But I think it's unlikely that DC will ever again be the center of the wheel the way it once was.

[Anonymous]

If we're talking one child, the families I have seen are clearly compromising (some will actually admit it) when one parent wants a child and the other parent clearly does not.

[Anonymous]

It remains to be seen whether RTC or Tysons, or White Flint will be retrofitted properly. Everything we've seen up until this point has shown that they're incapable of executing. Also, it's a bit of a fallacy to think that tomorrow's "biotech execs" are going to be as enamored of McMansions and sprawl as today's Baby Boomers are.