American Focus on Suburbs Leading to Large Houses

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I mean yeah OP- the problem is usually cost.

We paid a fortune for our tiny rowhome in DC to avoid the suburbs for all the reasons you mention. But others can’t afford it.

Or they’re worried about the schools. We are fortunate to be in a stronger school area but many of us still send our kids to private. That of course also requires money.

There is an American fixation on size, too. I know people who could afford to stay in the city but they absolutely needed a 9 bedroom home with a 4 car garage in the middle of nowhere. That personally is a nightmare to me but to each his own.

Oh no I get it, if cost is an issue of course you have to do what you have to do. If you can only afford say a two bedroom condo in town, but further out can afford a TH or SFH that is much larger for your family, then yeah completely get it.

What I don't get is those that can afford a decently sized (which I define as 2000sq ft) SFH/TH in walkable areas, but choose to go further out to massive properties.

But I do see some of the other points people are trying to make, with the increase in crime, homelesness and etc in DC, that they would rather be in a suburb where it's quiet and safe for their kids (hell tbh, and not to sound like a hypocrite, but we partially made that choice when buying, rather than staying directly in DC we chose to move to the Clarendon area). But that's still a walkable area and of course compromises had to be made size wise (ie TH vs SFH). But to each their own and yeah I completely get (since partially that's what we did) why you chose to get a townhouse in DC.

It's not just DC as well though, traveling through some of the US and seeing just suburbs, feels quiet "alien" to me compared to Europe and Asia.

[Anonymous]

I grew up in a suburb outside of New York and I felt like I had a great childhood and wanted to return to that and also provide it to our kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean yeah OP- the problem is usually cost.

We paid a fortune for our tiny rowhome in DC to avoid the suburbs for all the reasons you mention. But others can’t afford it.

Or they’re worried about the schools. We are fortunate to be in a stronger school area but many of us still send our kids to private. That of course also requires money.

There is an American fixation on size, too. I know people who could afford to stay in the city but they absolutely needed a 9 bedroom home with a 4 car garage in the middle of nowhere. That personally is a nightmare to me but to each his own.

Oh no I get it, if cost is an issue of course you have to do what you have to do. If you can only afford say a two bedroom condo in town, but further out can afford a TH or SFH that is much larger for your family, then yeah completely get it.

What I don't get is those that can afford a decently sized (which I define as 2000sq ft) SFH/TH in walkable areas, but choose to go further out to massive properties.

But I do see some of the other points people are trying to make, with the increase in crime, homelesness and etc in DC, that they would rather be in a suburb where it's quiet and safe for their kids (hell tbh, and not to sound like a hypocrite, but we partially made that choice when buying, rather than staying directly in DC we chose to move to the Clarendon area). But that's still a walkable area and of course compromises had to be made size wise (ie TH vs SFH). But to each their own and yeah I completely get (since partially that's what we did) why you chose to get a townhouse in DC.

It's not just DC as well though, traveling through some of the US and seeing just suburbs, feels quiet "alien" to me compared to Europe and Asia.

Plenty of walkable areas in the burbs these days without having to step foot in the city. The suburbs like Fairfax and Loudoun aren’t just giant roads with giant suburban homes.

[Anonymous]

In the US, there aren't a lot of big cities with really good public schools and low crime. I would have loved to stay in our Logan rowhouse, but my kids couldn't bike around and the MS and HS were a non-starter. We got into a popular charter but were unimpressed so we moved. There's a reason you don't see a lot of UMC tweens and teens living there.

[Anonymous]

I don't get the giant builds out in Loudon either, but think of them as gilded age mansions... which is what they are, even if they are the cheap 2 million dollar version and not the elaborate 20 million dollar version.

A lot of people will say they're for extended families. This is somewhat true, typically from families who came here from countries where that's how their social class lived--or aspired to live. It's the South, people won't come out and say it but a lot of people have a gentleman farmer/estate fantasy about the good life down here, and developers can buy up farmland for cheap and make their dreams come true.

I don't get it either, usually they're architecturally terrible, and all those expanses of useless lawn (tended by workers without any job security), just seem cold and empty to me. But people like it. They think it's the American dream.

[Anonymous]

Also, practically, I suspect that some of those Loudon builds have lower property taxes than smaller houses in Maplewood, NJ, etc , making the carrying costs similar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to be controversial. I do love urban walkable cities and love the midsize cities of Europe, places like Munich for example, for offering a great balance of walkability without feeing too big (looking at NYC) or expensive (looking at you London).

I currently live in a nice "inner" suburb that has some walkability and handsome housing stock. One thinks win-win, right?

But there's another aspect to newer American suburbia that I've come to appreciate in new years. And that is how much easier life does seem to be out there. Schools are good and uncomplicated (note the uncomplicated part). Local stores and supermarkets and drugstores are filled with uncomplicated patrons (note the uncomplicated part). Traffic is calmer and uncomplicated (note the uncomplicated part).

There are a lot fewer hassles and less in your face stress in outer/newer suburbia. Life is quieter - and calmer. So I'm not surprised by why so many affluent families buy in newer suburbia.

I'm not quite sure if the PP is trying to say that life in the inner suburbs is more complicated than in the outer suburbs? In my experience, the inner suburbs are pretty awesome. We moved from DC to Bethesda over 15 years ago, and our quality of life went way up. It is very family-friendly, with lots of recreational facilities and sports/arts opportunities. I've met tons of our neighbors through the schools and our neighborhood pool. Most of our neighbors seem to be respectful, quiet, polite, trustworthy, and educated. They keep their yards looking nice, and try to be good neighbors (by driving at safe speeds, being considerate, not smoking weed outside or having loud parties, etc). (Since the inner suburbs are more dense that the outer suburbs, these qualities are essential. Maybe more people would like to live in dense areas, like cities, if they could trust that their neighbors would be respectful and courteous. It's just that, in the US, we don't necessarily have the same cultural norms as in some other countries. Here in the US, some (entitled) people seem to think that "this is America and therefore I can do whatever I want, and who cares what impact my behavior has on other people."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean yeah OP- the problem is usually cost.

We paid a fortune for our tiny rowhome in DC to avoid the suburbs for all the reasons you mention. But others can’t afford it.

Or they’re worried about the schools. We are fortunate to be in a stronger school area but many of us still send our kids to private. That of course also requires money.

There is an American fixation on size, too. I know people who could afford to stay in the city but they absolutely needed a 9 bedroom home with a 4 car garage in the middle of nowhere. That personally is a nightmare to me but to each his own.

Oh no I get it, if cost is an issue of course you have to do what you have to do. If you can only afford say a two bedroom condo in town, but further out can afford a TH or SFH that is much larger for your family, then yeah completely get it.

What I don't get is those that can afford a decently sized (which I define as 2000sq ft) SFH/TH in walkable areas, but choose to go further out to massive properties.

But I do see some of the other points people are trying to make, with the increase in crime, homelesness and etc in DC, that they would rather be in a suburb where it's quiet and safe for their kids (hell tbh, and not to sound like a hypocrite, but we partially made that choice when buying, rather than staying directly in DC we chose to move to the Clarendon area). But that's still a walkable area and of course compromises had to be made size wise (ie TH vs SFH). But to each their own and yeah I completely get (since partially that's what we did) why you chose to get a townhouse in DC.

It's not just DC as well though, traveling through some of the US and seeing just suburbs, feels quiet "alien" to me compared to Europe and Asia.

Could you be more pretentious? We understand that you need to compensate, living in Arlington, but jeez.

[Anonymous]

It’s not cost.

Most people like nature over concrete.

[Anonymous]

So it seems as if OP is really asking why the rich choose the suburbs over the city. As others have pointed out, it’s for privacy and not everyone likes the hustle and bustle of the city. Many wealthy people live city adjacent but also have secondary residences in the burbs or countryside.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s not cost.

Most people like nature over concrete.

For the average person it is cost but it’s true that some also do prefer nature. We’re in an exurb because of this and it’s wonderful but we do miss the diversity of the city.

OP said assuming that schools are comparable well they weren’t which was another factor in us leaving. We were in NW DC, ward 3, and elementary schools were fine but the middle schools and High schools weren’t. We didn’t want to have to go the private route.

[Anonymous]

Someone could offer me a free house to live in in DC or NYC or whatever major city and I would turn it down. The chaos and business of the city are insanely stressful to me.

I have an extremely “on” job where I’m interacting and talking with people for 8 hours straight. After work, I want quiet and nature. My favorite evening activity is to leash up the dogs and walk to the edge of the neighborhood where there is a small section of woods to hike through. I can see no one. It’s lovely. I’d actually like to move farther out to get more space, but DH works downtown and DCs benefit from being in a neighborhood with other kids.

[Anonymous]

I have a big house in Potomac.

I have never worked in DC, my wife is a SAHM

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean yeah OP- the problem is usually cost.

We paid a fortune for our tiny rowhome in DC to avoid the suburbs for all the reasons you mention. But others can’t afford it.

Or they’re worried about the schools. We are fortunate to be in a stronger school area but many of us still send our kids to private. That of course also requires money.

There is an American fixation on size, too. I know people who could afford to stay in the city but they absolutely needed a 9 bedroom home with a 4 car garage in the middle of nowhere. That personally is a nightmare to me but to each his own.

Oh no I get it, if cost is an issue of course you have to do what you have to do. If you can only afford say a two bedroom condo in town, but further out can afford a TH or SFH that is much larger for your family, then yeah completely get it.

What I don't get is those that can afford a decently sized (which I define as 2000sq ft) SFH/TH in walkable areas, but choose to go further out to massive properties.

But I do see some of the other points people are trying to make, with the increase in crime, homelesness and etc in DC, that they would rather be in a suburb where it's quiet and safe for their kids (hell tbh, and not to sound like a hypocrite, but we partially made that choice when buying, rather than staying directly in DC we chose to move to the Clarendon area). But that's still a walkable area and of course compromises had to be made size wise (ie TH vs SFH). But to each their own and yeah I completely get (since partially that's what we did) why you chose to get a townhouse in DC.

It's not just DC as well though, traveling through some of the US and seeing just suburbs, feels quiet "alien" to me compared to Europe and Asia.

Could you be more pretentious? We understand that you need to compensate, living in Arlington, but jeez.

Could you be more negative and provide so little value to the discussion? Sometimes the number of sad angry idiots on this forum astounds me.

In what way was I being pretentious? Simply stating that we had to make the compromise on walkability, size, and safety ourselves and therefore given our budget could not be in DC had to move to Arlington. As someone who is 31 (and partner is 30) and recently married, at current interest rates no way could we afford to buy in DC. Very hard to find a TH in a decent area in DC for our budget of $1m or less (Georgetown area, Dupont, Kalorama, Friendships Heights, etc) so yeah had to make the move to Arlington if wanted to be in a nice walkable area but also have a TH. So I get the compromises that have to be if constrained by finances.

But you be you being all negative, you dumb cnt.

[Anonymous]

I know you said to discount money, but the small crappy old 2bdr house we rented close to everything somewhere we loved would have cost 900k to buy. In a further away burb, we bought a 4bdr much nicer house for 450k. Is it as fun and walkable and exciting? No, but it was a much better decision for us since we couldn't afford to live where we were long term.