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