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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

City dwellers do not have a monopoly on a sense of community. I'd wager that most suburban cul-de-sacs would actually know their neighbors to the right and to the left, and their kids can ride bikes around that block without being mowed down by the traffic. Out of the window of my Falls Church home I see joggers and bikers and walking kids. Huge rental buildings downtown can have almost no sense of togetherness, and to me at least there is no argument that aesthetically most suburban blocks have it in spades over Anacostia and many nondescript blocks in DC. Yes, DC has absolutely lovely architecture, especially in townhouses, but let's not pretend that the entire District consists of nothing but. There's plenty of ugliness there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I bet that most people, "biotech execs" or not, would rather live closer to where they work. So if someone works at the 270 corridor and their spouse works around there too, why wouldn't they live nearby??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I bet that most people, "biotech execs" or not, would rather live closer to where they work. So if someone works at the 270 corridor and their spouse works around there too, why wouldn't they live nearby??

Because it sucks and a reverse commute is manageable so why not live where all the good stuff is? I'm talking about the city in case you are wondering what 'good stuff' actually denotes. Central not Chick Fil-A.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Retrofitted properly? Not sure what that means, but RTC seems pretty nice to me an the revitalized downtown Silver Spring seems to be doing it right. It's got a Metro stop, Discovery is headquartered there, lots of restaurants, diverse types and price ranges of housing and a nice mix of ethnicities. You may be right about people being over sprawl, but the reason sprawl developed in the first place was peoples' desire for a comfortable environment. I question whether that desire will be any less pronounced in the future, even if the cost of attaining it becomes higher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I bet that most people, "biotech execs" or not, would rather live closer to where they work. So if someone works at the 270 corridor and their spouse works around there too, why wouldn't they live nearby??

Because it sucks and a reverse commute is manageable so why not live where all the good stuff is? I'm talking about the city in case you are wondering what 'good stuff' actually denotes. Central not Chick Fil-A.

Sorry but if I have a family and work somewhere in the burbs where there are good schools and available nice homes, why the hell would I move further out for the sake of living near good restaurants and museums? This is all about priorities. If I want to go to Central, I'll just drive or metro there. It. does. not. take. that. long. And for crying out loud, believe it or not, some people prefer living in the suburbs and do not think it sucks. Signed, someone who loved living in the city for years before having kids and now loves her neighborhood in the suburbs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I bet that most people, "biotech execs" or not, would rather live closer to where they work. So if someone works at the 270 corridor and their spouse works around there too, why wouldn't they live nearby??

Because it sucks and a reverse commute is manageable so why not live where all the good stuff is? I'm talking about the city in case you are wondering what 'good stuff' actually denotes. Central not Chick Fil-A.

What you don't seem to get is that when you have young kids, you don't have much free time to do all the things you think of as "good stuff." Young ones need a fairly consistent schedule. And for many of us, a comfortable, leafy, safe environment is the good stuff and a happy home life is the best stuff of all. We can always take a trip in to see a museum or eat at the latest trendy eatery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please don't judge me for my toddler's $50 shoes. He has XW feet and the only shoes I can find for him are from Stride-Rite and that's how much things cost there. Since all his other clothes are hand-me-downs and consignment shop finds, can we please hang with you?

And he wore those shoes to watch an amazing parade and to check out the National Museum of Natural History yesterday, which is only 20 minutes from our house.

Love,
DC native

I don't think OP means you. I think she means the $50 shoes, and the $100 outfits, and so on. To splurge for something your child needs is not a splurge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is what I think of all of the terribly negative people on this post: they are miserable people who would not be happy anywhere. Talk about ungrateful. The location isn't the problem- you are.

Thank you! I so agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

You are criticizing. You began your sentence with "I think it's a shame", which means "I think it's shameful", which is criticism.

I have no idea how your post is "keeping it real". All you appear to be doing is judging people based on what you perceive their motives to be. The nastiest thing about people like you who look down on others for their choices is that you think that those other people don't care as much about their children as you do yours, and that they aren't making decisions that are in the best interests of their families. Here's something you apparently do not know: just because people make choices that are different from yours doesn't make those choices bad. You might want to pass that on to your children, too, btw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I bet that most people, "biotech execs" or not, would rather live closer to where they work. So if someone works at the 270 corridor and their spouse works around there too, why wouldn't they live nearby??

Because it sucks and a reverse commute is manageable so why not live where all the good stuff is? I'm talking about the city in case you are wondering what 'good stuff' actually denotes. Central not Chick Fil-A.

I had to laugh at this. Pre-baby, eating at Central consumed about 80% of my eating-out, city-dweller budget. I mean, I got pampered there like nobody's business because of all the hours my arse clocked in on their barstools. You can feed a small village with all the free gougeres I've scarfed down there.

Guess what? Since I've had DS 7 months ago, I've been there a grand total of once, which involved major coordination of "I put the baby to bed, then you take over, I go have dinner and try to be home before midnight". Sure, I may miss my freewheeling life once in a while, but I don't live like that any more. And no, I don't feel like bringing the baby to Central except a brief nip-in to show him around.

I ought to move to the city for this? And I gotta laugh at the arrogance of you telling people what the "good stuff is". Enlighten me, o wise one. Barf.

[Anonymous]

NP: I love living near Central with a kid. They have a awesome bucket of chicken if she isn't in the mood for a nice restaurant!

[Anonymous]

Okay, what is the psychological probelm that you have and consequently feel the need to inflict your shortcomings on us? We should all be you? Puhlease. How D.C. And not in a good way.

[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??

Before you judge, realize that there are some women who don't have a second pregnancy for medical reasons. I'm still mourning this, and comments such as yours sting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you proposing that I have another child even though neither I nor my husband really wants one? We are very good parents to one, but know ourselves well enough to know we might not be to more than one. As one benefit to having one is that we are able to live in a place that we really like but could not afford with more than one, should we disregard our feelings about what will work best for our family and have another anyway?

[Anonymous]

DC is a great place to raise kids, if you can afford it. Think that basic premise is true just about anywhere and it just sucks for a lot of people that a dollar doesn't go as far here as it does other places. We love it here and the only place we would move is back to NYC. To make it work we both have higher stress, and higher paying jobs, than we might have taken living somewhere with a lower cost of living, but we both enjoy those jobs. And I really do think being able to enjoy living in smaller spaces and having short commutes is key. If I had to spend hours commuting I would hate my life, and getting home to a big house or a big yard wouldn't fix that for me. Someone else already said it, but it does sound like money is the root of the issue here. OP, if your jobs and family don't tie you to this area and you won't miss what DC has to offer, than moving probably your best bet.