Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Definitely not. I don’t think suburban or city living is inherently considered a failure by most but the standard of living would be.

I would not consider someone who lives in a chic penthouse apartment in a city near cool restaurants, museums, etc a failure or someone living in a stately home on a quiet road surrounded by well maintained parks and good schools a failure.

I might prefer one over the other, personally, but clearly there are very good reasons to choice both options and it’s a matter of preference.

You described two different city scenarios...

Serious question. Where does one find a "stately home on a quiet road surrounded by well maintained parks and good scools" in DC?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Suburban-like while still in city is the pinnacle of living. Greenery, trees, 2000 sq ft+ of living space....but only a 10-15 minute commute to your downtown office.

So yes, suburban with a 30+ minute commute is a failure.

I live in the suburbs one mile from my office and WFH 4 days a week. Heaven.

Other than the crippling debt, sadness, traffic, loneliness and soulless living. TOTAL heaven.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Definitely not. I don’t think suburban or city living is inherently considered a failure by most but the standard of living would be.

I would not consider someone who lives in a chic penthouse apartment in a city near cool restaurants, museums, etc a failure or someone living in a stately home on a quiet road surrounded by well maintained parks and good schools a failure.

I might prefer one over the other, personally, but clearly there are very good reasons to choice both options and it’s a matter of preference.

You described two different city scenarios...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Suburban-like while still in city is the pinnacle of living. Greenery, trees, 2000 sq ft+ of living space....but only a 10-15 minute commute to your downtown office.

So yes, suburban with a 30+ minute commute is a failure.

I live in the suburbs one mile from my office and WFH 4 days a week. Heaven.

Other than the crippling debt, sadness, traffic, loneliness and soulless living. TOTAL heaven.

Anonymous wrote:Definitely not. I don’t think suburban or city living is inherently considered a failure by most but the standard of living would be.

I would not consider someone who lives in a chic penthouse apartment in a city near cool restaurants, museums, etc a failure or someone living in a stately home on a quiet road surrounded by well maintained parks and good schools a failure.

I might prefer one over the other, personally, but clearly there are very good reasons to choice both options and it’s a matter of preference.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The great majority of Americans live in the suburbs. Rich, poor, middle class.

What are you trying to imply? A lot of DC is quite suburban-like in vibes and in other cities higher density areas exist in the suburbs while lower density areas exist inside the city limits (like NYC).

I think this thread is a direct response to the "Is living in a condo considered a failure?" thread from earlier in the week

Of course it is not a failure but people like to get competitive about this stuff and likely the same people who claimed living in a condo is a failure will be quite defensive about the idea that living in the suburbs could be a failure

None of this is "a failure"

Op here. That is exactly what it was. I didn’t expect so many passionate responses so fast. Funny how that worked out.

No one is defensive, they are just saying your universal assumption is incorrect. You call living in a suburb is a failure. People are saying it is not because they live in suburbs and have not failed. They may have failed to live up to your socialist collective ideology. That isn't a failure, that is a not living to your preferences.

Not all suburbs are a disaster. Some of the Maryland ones are quite nice. The Virginia ones should be razed though.

I go weeks without even leaving my Loudoun zip code. The only traffic I ever see is when I need to go to Arlington or DC, which is thankfully rare. My 5,000sf house cost $600k in 2013 and I have a 2.5% interest rate. #winning.

Sounds... great.

*smirk*

DP. Smirk all you want, what Loudoun poster describes IS great. I have the Fairfax County version of it, also work from home and rarely leave my zip code. It is wonderful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Suburban-like while still in city is the pinnacle of living. Greenery, trees, 2000 sq ft+ of living space....but only a 10-15 minute commute to your downtown office.

So yes, suburban with a 30+ minute commute is a failure.

I live in the suburbs one mile from my office and WFH 4 days a week. Heaven.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The great majority of Americans live in the suburbs. Rich, poor, middle class.

What are you trying to imply? A lot of DC is quite suburban-like in vibes and in other cities higher density areas exist in the suburbs while lower density areas exist inside the city limits (like NYC).

I think this thread is a direct response to the "Is living in a condo considered a failure?" thread from earlier in the week

Of course it is not a failure but people like to get competitive about this stuff and likely the same people who claimed living in a condo is a failure will be quite defensive about the idea that living in the suburbs could be a failure

None of this is "a failure"

Op here. That is exactly what it was. I didn’t expect so many passionate responses so fast. Funny how that worked out.

No one is defensive, they are just saying your universal assumption is incorrect. You call living in a suburb is a failure. People are saying it is not because they live in suburbs and have not failed. They may have failed to live up to your socialist collective ideology. That isn't a failure, that is a not living to your preferences.

Not all suburbs are a disaster. Some of the Maryland ones are quite nice. The Virginia ones should be razed though.

I go weeks without even leaving my Loudoun zip code. The only traffic I ever see is when I need to go to Arlington or DC, which is thankfully rare. My 5,000sf house cost $600k in 2013 and I have a 2.5% interest rate. #winning.

Sounds... great.

*smirk*

DP. Smirk all you want, what Loudoun poster describes IS great. I have the Fairfax County version of it, also work from home and rarely leave my zip code. It is wonderful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The great majority of Americans live in the suburbs. Rich, poor, middle class.

What are you trying to imply? A lot of DC is quite suburban-like in vibes and in other cities higher density areas exist in the suburbs while lower density areas exist inside the city limits (like NYC).

I think this thread is a direct response to the "Is living in a condo considered a failure?" thread from earlier in the week

Of course it is not a failure but people like to get competitive about this stuff and likely the same people who claimed living in a condo is a failure will be quite defensive about the idea that living in the suburbs could be a failure

None of this is "a failure"

Op here. That is exactly what it was. I didn’t expect so many passionate responses so fast. Funny how that worked out.

No one is defensive, they are just saying your universal assumption is incorrect. You call living in a suburb is a failure. People are saying it is not because they live in suburbs and have not failed. They may have failed to live up to your socialist collective ideology. That isn't a failure, that is a not living to your preferences.

Not all suburbs are a disaster. Some of the Maryland ones are quite nice. The Virginia ones should be razed though.

I go weeks without even leaving my Loudoun zip code. The only traffic I ever see is when I need to go to Arlington or DC, which is thankfully rare. My 5,000sf house cost $600k in 2013 and I have a 2.5% interest rate. #winning.

Sounds... great.

*smirk*

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Suburban-like while still in city is the pinnacle of living. Greenery, trees, 2000 sq ft+ of living space....but only a 10-15 minute commute to your downtown office.

So yes, suburban with a 30+ minute commute is a failure.

This is just weaponizing zoning for your benefit. One step below being a crooked oligarch

Cope.

*tosses a wooden nickel in your general direction while avoiding eye contact*

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Suburban-like while still in city is the pinnacle of living. Greenery, trees, 2000 sq ft+ of living space....but only a 10-15 minute commute to your downtown office.

So yes, suburban with a 30+ minute commute is a failure.

I live in the suburbs one mile from my office and WFH 4 days a week. Heaven.

Anonymous wrote:Suburban-like while still in city is the pinnacle of living. Greenery, trees, 2000 sq ft+ of living space....but only a 10-15 minute commute to your downtown office.

So yes, suburban with a 30+ minute commute is a failure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Suburban-like while still in city is the pinnacle of living. Greenery, trees, 2000 sq ft+ of living space....but only a 10-15 minute commute to your downtown office.

So yes, suburban with a 30+ minute commute is a failure.

This is just weaponizing zoning for your benefit. One step below being a crooked oligarch

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Suburban-like while still in city is the pinnacle of living. Greenery, trees, 2000 sq ft+ of living space....but only a 10-15 minute commute to your downtown office.

So yes, suburban with a 30+ minute commute is a failure.

+1