Anonymous wrote:
I can absolutely afford one, I just choose not to own one. I do not need one where I live.
Anonymous wrote: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.
I can’t recommend Philly enough. Like all big cities, it has big city problems, but cost of living is so much better and has all of the amenities, most of which are better than DC. Much better in terms of restaurants, etc. Also, it really isn’t insular at least in greater center city. Lots of transplants from Europe as well. The only major issue is that schools are difficult to navigate in the city. There are options but not easy if you don’t go private. Suburbs have comparable school stock to DC burbs
Anonymous wrote:Baltimore is only a hour away by MARC and there's a 45 minute express in the afternoon. Wonder why more don't move up to Baltimore.
Anonymous wrote: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.
I can’t recommend Philly enough. Like all big cities, it has big city problems, but cost of living is so much better and has all of the amenities, most of which are better than DC. Much better in terms of restaurants, etc. Also, it really isn’t insular at least in greater center city. Lots of transplants from Europe as well. The only major issue is that schools are difficult to navigate in the city. There are options but not easy if you don’t go private. Suburbs have comparable school stock to DC burbs
Anonymous wrote:We left dc and it was the best decision we made. Our kids go to a strong public in our new, small city. The mental load here is so much less - less competitive professionally and academically, cost of living is about 60% less than dc, there is little traffic. We have everything we need, albeit no world class museums or a multitude of fine dining restaurants, but we don’t miss those things that much. We have calm, normal neighbors who do normal things and take normal vacations. My kids aren’t in a pressure cooker school yet still seems to be learning a ton and doing great on standardized testing. Their college options are better coming from here than close in DMV. We have room to breathe. We moved about 4 years ago and our house has appreciated about 50%.
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.
Anonymous wrote:We left dc and it was the best decision we made. Our kids go to a strong public in our new, small city. The mental load here is so much less - less competitive professionally and academically, cost of living is about 60% less than dc, there is little traffic. We have everything we need, albeit no world class museums or a multitude of fine dining restaurants, but we don’t miss those things that much. We have calm, normal neighbors who do normal things and take normal vacations. My kids aren’t in a pressure cooker school yet still seems to be learning a ton and doing great on standardized testing. Their college options are better coming from here than close in DMV. We have room to breathe. We moved about 4 years ago and our house has appreciated about 50%.
Anonymous wrote:We left dc and it was the best decision we made. Our kids go to a strong public in our new, small city. The mental load here is so much less - less competitive professionally and academically, cost of living is about 60% less than dc, there is little traffic. We have everything we need, albeit no world class museums or a multitude of fine dining restaurants, but we don’t miss those things that much. We have calm, normal neighbors who do normal things and take normal vacations. My kids aren’t in a pressure cooker school yet still seems to be learning a ton and doing great on standardized testing. Their college options are better coming from here than close in DMV. We have room to breathe. We moved about 4 years ago and our house has appreciated about 50%.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It’s not just cheaper housing. It’s better schools, less crime and fewer homeless people.
Not to mention rural, towns and suburbs have caught up in terms of dining, gyms and other amenities. You no longer need to live in a city for access to these things.
Virginia?
No. I live in a rural town and there is none of the following here or within 90 minutes of me: stores such as Lululemon, Apple, Athleta, Nordstrom, Coach and also Whole Foods, Equinox, Lifetime Fitness, Trader Joe’s, Soulcycle, Justsalad, Sweetgreen and Cava.
Every single one of these things that isn’t edible is available more conveniently online, and my smaller town has a better organic market and much better artisanal restaurants than Sweetgreen and Cava lol.
What smaller town can support an organic market?? This most be a vacation destination. Real rural towns don’t have organic markets, they have a section in Walmart. .
This is just untrue. I lived in a very rural town that had an organic co-op.
You should get out once in a while.
Outside of New England It a resort town? Name the state
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That’s short-sighted. You stay in the city in a crummy group house in your 20s because it’s the time to network & meet lifelong partner. No better place to do that.
Sounds miserable.
Yes, spending your days running into many potential peers/mates on metro, at coffee shops, at work, at parks, at museums, at parties and at clubs sounds miserable.
Uh, people meet in apps now, hmm grannie. Not the freaking SUBWAY!
Dating apps suck
Dating apps do suck, but not as badly as being hit on by randos in the metro.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That’s short-sighted. You stay in the city in a crummy group house in your 20s because it’s the time to network & meet lifelong partner. No better place to do that.
Sounds miserable.
Yes, spending your days running into many potential peers/mates on metro, at coffee shops, at work, at parks, at museums, at parties and at clubs sounds miserable.
Uh, people meet in apps now, hmm grannie. Not the freaking SUBWAY!
Dating apps suck
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That’s short-sighted. You stay in the city in a crummy group house in your 20s because it’s the time to network & meet lifelong partner. No better place to do that.
Sounds miserable.
Yes, spending your days running into many potential peers/mates on metro, at coffee shops, at work, at parks, at museums, at parties and at clubs sounds miserable.
Uh, people meet in apps now, hmm grannie. Not the freaking SUBWAY!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:That’s short-sighted. You stay in the city in a crummy group house in your 20s because it’s the time to network & meet lifelong partner. No better place to do that.
Sounds miserable.
Yes, spending your days running into many potential peers/mates on metro, at coffee shops, at work, at parks, at museums, at parties and at clubs sounds miserable.
Who wants to be hit on at work and on the metro?