NYTimes: College educated workers are leaving DC due to high housing costs

[Anonymous]

Many beautiful rural towns with strong a CNNoolsn ARE vacation destinations— and also places where people now choose to live year round. Look at someplace like Woodstock, VT or Hanover NH/Norwich VT or many other college towns full of educated people without the teeming masses traffic and crime of DC.

[Anonymous]

^schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This doesn’t mean they’re moving to the middle of nowhere. Likely places like Philly, Providence, Richmond, Baltimore, Charlotte, Nashville, Pittsburgh and
Columbus that all have some semblance of city amenities like Whole Foods, public transit, “luxury” brand new apartments, walkability and Amtrak stop, but are relatively affordable.

Not just a semblance of a city, but employers. WFH is all but dead. People may be avoiding NYC and SF because of cost, but that doesn't mean they are going rural Montana

Why is WFH dead? DH's marketing company is now permanently hybrid and was 100% in person before. My office job where is making moves to increase from 1 day WFH to two and I hear our central corporate office is basically a ghost town.

It really seems like Hybrid is the wave of the future where and when it can be applied.

I think that will be the norm, but hybrid means that you have to live close enough to actually go in. It makes exurbs more viable because 2 hours once or twice a week may be worth it in exchange for a higher standard of living, but that still closes off a lot of rural America and ties you to a city with a office you can go into

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This doesn’t mean they’re moving to the middle of nowhere. Likely places like Philly, Providence, Richmond, Baltimore, Charlotte, Nashville, Pittsburgh and
Columbus that all have some semblance of city amenities like Whole Foods, public transit, “luxury” brand new apartments, walkability and Amtrak stop, but are relatively affordable.

Not just a semblance of a city, but employers. WFH is all but dead. People may be avoiding NYC and SF because of cost, but that doesn't mean they are going rural Montana

Why is WFH dead? DH's marketing company is now permanently hybrid and was 100% in person before. My office job where is making moves to increase from 1 day WFH to two and I hear our central corporate office is basically a ghost town.

It really seems like Hybrid is the wave of the future where and when it can be applied.

I think that will be the norm, but hybrid means that you have to live close enough to actually go in. It makes exurbs more viable because 2 hours once or twice a week may be worth it in exchange for a higher standard of living, but that still closes off a lot of rural America and ties you to a city with a office you can go into

Yeah, and that's part of the reason why Richmond real estate has become so hot. Virginia is also investing in increasing rail service between Richmond and DC, making that 1 day a week commute super easy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The reality is that these T2 cities now have most of the amenities of larger cities with nicer housing, less traffic and fewer awful people. And for the number of times you actually use the Smithsonian or go to the theater, you can travel to NYC or DC four times a year to see the shows and then GTFO back to a more civilized enclave.

Depends on the person. We actually use the Smithsonian almost every weekend. We are also tired of the high cost of housing and some of the culture in DC, and are exploring moving elsewhere. But losing access to free museums and events, all year round, is actually a big deal and not easy to give up.

Another issue we are encountering is that there are very few truly walkable cities in the US. DC, NYC, Boston, Philly. Chicago has decent public transportation which can make it walkable if you live/work/go to school in the right place. Seattle is walkable in parts but it's public transportation is spotty. All the other alternatives people have mentioned -- Minneapolis, Portland, Denver, Austin, etc. -- you will be very car dependent.

But NYC and Seattle are as expensive if not more so than DC. Boston is comparable. Philly and Chicago are cheaper; they are also more insular and can be harder to move to as an outsider -- fewer transplants and if you aren't from there, it can be socially difficult.

I totally get why people might want to leave DC. We often feel that way. But the idea that there are lots of other cities that offer what DC offers is false. DC offers something really unique: a walkable, modern city with a booming economy, tons of cultural/social activities and venues, AND a culture that is extremely friendly to newcomers and outsiders.

[Anonymous]

I like DC, I want it to be better, but honestly I'm thrilled that more college educated people are moving to smaller towns/cities. More education = more likely to be Democrats; I hope they turn those places blue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like DC, I want it to be better, but honestly I'm thrilled that more college educated people are moving to smaller towns/cities. More education = more likely to be Democrats; I hope they turn those places blue.

The problem is that being blue is what has turned DC and other great cities into cesspools.

Why move someplace new and try to turn it into the place you left because of bad schools, crime, bad government etc? That’s stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This doesn’t mean they’re moving to the middle of nowhere. Likely places like Philly, Providence, Richmond, Baltimore, Charlotte, Nashville, Pittsburgh and
Columbus that all have some semblance of city amenities like Whole Foods, public transit, “luxury” brand new apartments, walkability and Amtrak stop, but are relatively affordable.

Not just a semblance of a city, but employers. WFH is all but dead. People may be avoiding NYC and SF because of cost, but that doesn't mean they are going rural Montana

Why is WFH dead? DH's marketing company is now permanently hybrid and was 100% in person before. My office job where is making moves to increase from 1 day WFH to two and I hear our central corporate office is basically a ghost town.

It really seems like Hybrid is the wave of the future where and when it can be applied.

I think that will be the norm, but hybrid means that you have to live close enough to actually go in. It makes exurbs more viable because 2 hours once or twice a week may be worth it in exchange for a higher standard of living, but that still closes off a lot of rural America and ties you to a city with a office you can go into

Yeah, and that's part of the reason why Richmond real estate has become so hot. Virginia is also investing in increasing rail service between Richmond and DC, making that 1 day a week commute super easy.

Philly too. There are now $10 fares if you leave before 7am. It’s smart.

[Anonymous]

The small city I am from that’s 2 hours from NYC, Philly & a couple NJ beaches seems to be improving because of WFH. Maybe it’s too early or too late to tell. But I visit family there often, and a bunch of old factory buildings have been converted into nice 1-3 bedroom apartments. People are living downtown, which was unthinkable. There has definitely been development activity for the first time in awhile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reality is that these T2 cities now have most of the amenities of larger cities with nicer housing, less traffic and fewer awful people. And for the number of times you actually use the Smithsonian or go to the theater, you can travel to NYC or DC four times a year to see the shows and then GTFO back to a more civilized enclave.

Depends on the person. We actually use the Smithsonian almost every weekend. We are also tired of the high cost of housing and some of the culture in DC, and are exploring moving elsewhere. But losing access to free museums and events, all year round, is actually a big deal and not easy to give up.

Another issue we are encountering is that there are very few truly walkable cities in the US. DC, NYC, Boston, Philly. Chicago has decent public transportation which can make it walkable if you live/work/go to school in the right place. Seattle is walkable in parts but it's public transportation is spotty. All the other alternatives people have mentioned -- Minneapolis, Portland, Denver, Austin, etc. -- you will be very car dependent.

But NYC and Seattle are as expensive if not more so than DC. Boston is comparable. Philly and Chicago are cheaper; they are also more insular and can be harder to move to as an outsider -- fewer transplants and if you aren't from there, it can be socially difficult.

I totally get why people might want to leave DC. We often feel that way. But the idea that there are lots of other cities that offer what DC offers is false. DC offers something really unique: a walkable, modern city with a booming economy, tons of cultural/social activities and venues, AND a culture that is extremely friendly to newcomers and outsiders.

But you’re missing the fact that a lot of these places offer something DC doesn’t, like same-day great skiing, nearby beach or lake, amazing natural setting with room for project or animals or some other amazing feature DC could never provide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like DC, I want it to be better, but honestly I'm thrilled that more college educated people are moving to smaller towns/cities. More education = more likely to be Democrats; I hope they turn those places blue.

The problem is that being blue is what has turned DC and other great cities into cesspools.

Why move someplace new and try to turn it into the place you left because of bad schools, crime, bad government etc? That’s stupid.

Maybe poor people are the root of those issues and blue policies minus poor people mean great schools, low crime and good government? Look at any rich town in the Hudson Valley, or CT or NJ. At the same time, no amount of great conservative leadership is going to make schools in rural alabama any good

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like DC, I want it to be better, but honestly I'm thrilled that more college educated people are moving to smaller towns/cities. More education = more likely to be Democrats; I hope they turn those places blue.

The problem is that being blue is what has turned DC and other great cities into cesspools.

Why move someplace new and try to turn it into the place you left because of bad schools, crime, bad government etc? That’s stupid.

Maybe poor people are the root of those issues and blue policies minus poor people mean great schools, low crime and good government? Look at any rich town in the Hudson Valley, or CT or NJ. At the same time, no amount of great conservative leadership is going to make schools in rural alabama any good

I mean duh if you keep out the poors. It’s segregation by another name in 2023.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like DC, I want it to be better, but honestly I'm thrilled that more college educated people are moving to smaller towns/cities. More education = more likely to be Democrats; I hope they turn those places blue.

The problem is that being blue is what has turned DC and other great cities into cesspools.

Why move someplace new and try to turn it into the place you left because of bad schools, crime, bad government etc? That’s stupid.

All “cities” are blue.

[Anonymous]

My brother gets his DC salary and now lives about an hour outside of Philly. He and his wife bought a 5 BR, 5.5 BA house on a 3 acre lot for under $500k! It also has a MIL/au pair suite, pool, and a detached larger garage (with garage apartment) & attached smaller garage. All of that would easily be $1.5mil or more in this area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like DC, I want it to be better, but honestly I'm thrilled that more college educated people are moving to smaller towns/cities. More education = more likely to be Democrats; I hope they turn those places blue.

The problem is that being blue is what has turned DC and other great cities into cesspools.

Why move someplace new and try to turn it into the place you left because of bad schools, crime, bad government etc? That’s stupid.

Maybe poor people are the root of those issues and blue policies minus poor people mean great schools, low crime and good government? Look at any rich town in the Hudson Valley, or CT or NJ. At the same time, no amount of great conservative leadership is going to make schools in rural alabama any good

I mean duh if you keep out the poors. It’s segregation by another name in 2023.

That's how you get low crime and great schools, the party in power is irrelevant