Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, more people live in cities so I'm not sure this is a fair assessment, but I see your point. I have friends who live (what to me is a nightmarish) suburban lifestyle and I think for them a lot of it is not valuing community in the same way I do and taking comfort in material things. I personally don't get it.

It’s odd you think cities have more community feel, I find the opposite

Really? Well, different experiences I guess. I grew up in Fairfax and my parents never talked to any of the neighbors. None of the neighbors seemed to talk to each other either. It was a very "each man for himself" kind of place. I played at a friend's house in the summer until I was 9 and that was it. There were no block parties, clothing swaps, school events, babysitting swaps, dinner parties, pizza parties, neighborhood holiday events like I have now living in NW DC. We are all looking out for each other. We keep each other abreast of things in the hood, at school, and fun things to do. We watch each others' kids and invite people over all the time. I know shop owners and neighbors and the librarians by name. I know many more community people by sight. Hell, I know my local politicians! I help clean up parks and flag issues for the community to deal with. I regularly see friends just walking down the street and decide to have impromptu fun. We had zero of that in Fairfax.

Lived in a large apartment building in Dupont for four years. Never knew any neighbors, it was so transient.

Please acknowledge that the setup you have in NW DC applies to a tiny sliver of DC that has SFHs while still within city limits.

lol what is this nonsense? MOST of DC is zoned for SFH and consists of such. Have you ever been to DC?

I thought you are all about urban density? What is this obsession with SFHs?

Anonymous wrote:I love my suburban neighborhood. Our house is almost 40 years old and not huge but has been well taken care of. I work FT from home and kids take the bus to local school. Teen son and I take turns mowing lawn with electric mower. Kids walk or bike to and from neighborhood parks, pool, and friends homes. Our yard has many trees and native plants. I love gardening. We love having our dog here. Everything is great.

I hate city noise and air pollution. PPs already mentioned all the crime and vagrancy; those also do not appeal to me. All of these factors combined would make me super stressed.

I am not “conditioned” to prefer suburban living. How is it unnatural for a human to prefer a cleaner, quieter, safer and greener environment? It isn’t a “white” thing either, as evidenced by my neighbors of all colors and nationalities.

You’re conditioned to think that suburban living is the only way to achieve the clean, quiet, safe, and green.

Not all suburbs are the same. I currently live in London (Zone 2, terraced house with a garden on a quiet street) and have visited friends in suburban Madrid, small town France, suburban Copenhagen, and a small city in The Netherlands. As well as walked the Camino in Portugal/Spain. We are now planning a move back to the US and I’m finding that there are less options for lifestyle choice in the US for families within children.

I can’t affordable, dense, clean, green, walkable to good schools and shops because they don’t exist due SFH zoning. Choosing to get around via anything but a car is a choice to drastically inconvenience myself.

I’m not arguing that one is better or worse, or that any of us should live one way or the other. Rather we as Americans haven’t really been offered proper choices. We’re choosing between options that were ultimately designed to benefit developers and car makers.

We have a lot more space than Europe and the American Dream has been more suburban than urban for decades (that whole white picket fence thing).

Meanwhile it’s been reported tonight that a homeless man walked into the Petworth library and stabbed another homeless man to death who was sitting at a computer terminal near some young kids.

I mean who wants to subject their kids to this crap? The people who are living in DC are having to endure an awful lot of stress knowing how much random violence is occurring there now. So no thanks until DC actually becomes a livable city.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I would never live in a dangerous neighborhood if I lived in the city so this is irrelevant.

It's very relevant because the average American can only afford housing in the dangerous areas of major cities. Sure, Cleveland Park is beautiful and walkable and relatively safe, but you need to be able to afford a house that is $2.5M+ and pay $50k a year/kid for private school because the public schools stink. The average American cannot do that, which is a very big reason that they don't live in urban areas.

Or (shocker!) you could live in an apartment like we do. Sure, we're still technically rich (HHI 250k) but we can't buy a home in CP, but we love it here so we rent. It's right near so much nature, very safe, it's a tradeoff well worth it to us. Plus, my kids have some best friends in our building and it's a lovely community.

The thing is that everybody should really evaluate whether you really need 2000sq ft per person in your home. The cost of insisting on that arbitrary need for space is just so high: economically, socially, environmentally. Sure, some of you will need it, but it's like this "given" in our culture and it's just so incredibly untrue.

In our 4,000 sf suburban house, we have only 800 sf per person.

Please tell me, lady who has no home equity, how this is costing us economically, socially, and environmentally?

If you don't understand the basic facts of how suburban sprawl is detrimental to the environment, PP sure won't be able to educate you.

Not PP but there the suburbs are not detrimental at all to the enviornment. Better for people to live outside a city.

depends on the density and access to transit, but most sunbelt suburbs (with their attendant sprawl) are horrible for the environment.

Cities are horrible for the environment too.

Prove it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I would never live in a dangerous neighborhood if I lived in the city so this is irrelevant.

It's very relevant because the average American can only afford housing in the dangerous areas of major cities. Sure, Cleveland Park is beautiful and walkable and relatively safe, but you need to be able to afford a house that is $2.5M+ and pay $50k a year/kid for private school because the public schools stink. The average American cannot do that, which is a very big reason that they don't live in urban areas.

Or (shocker!) you could live in an apartment like we do. Sure, we're still technically rich (HHI 250k) but we can't buy a home in CP, but we love it here so we rent. It's right near so much nature, very safe, it's a tradeoff well worth it to us. Plus, my kids have some best friends in our building and it's a lovely community.

The thing is that everybody should really evaluate whether you really need 2000sq ft per person in your home. The cost of insisting on that arbitrary need for space is just so high: economically, socially, environmentally. Sure, some of you will need it, but it's like this "given" in our culture and it's just so incredibly untrue.

In our 4,000 sf suburban house, we have only 800 sf per person.

Please tell me, lady who has no home equity, how this is costing us economically, socially, and environmentally?

If you don't understand the basic facts of how suburban sprawl is detrimental to the environment, PP sure won't be able to educate you.

Not PP but there the suburbs are not detrimental at all to the enviornment. Better for people to live outside a city.

depends on the density and access to transit, but most sunbelt suburbs (with their attendant sprawl) are horrible for the environment.

Cities are horrible for the environment too.

Anonymous wrote:For whatever reason, folks in Singapore, London, Hong Kong don’t seem to have these hang-ups about “the neighbors,” “living on top of one another” or “sharing walls”

London is very distinctly zoned, good vs bad neighborhoods. People are ok to live in good ones. US cities aren’t as distinctly zoned generally (with a few exceptions) because “good” neighborhoods are really the ‘burbs.
In Singapore I bet homeless are not allowed to loiter in public spaces
It’s just all very different

I am still on page 1 but my theory (as a foreigner) is that anything accessible by public transit is immediately occupied by all sorts of “undesirable” neighbors.
The only way to live in a safe, clean neighborhood with good schools is to be as far from public transit and high density housing as possible

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I would never live in a dangerous neighborhood if I lived in the city so this is irrelevant.

It's very relevant because the average American can only afford housing in the dangerous areas of major cities. Sure, Cleveland Park is beautiful and walkable and relatively safe, but you need to be able to afford a house that is $2.5M+ and pay $50k a year/kid for private school because the public schools stink. The average American cannot do that, which is a very big reason that they don't live in urban areas.

Or (shocker!) you could live in an apartment like we do. Sure, we're still technically rich (HHI 250k) but we can't buy a home in CP, but we love it here so we rent. It's right near so much nature, very safe, it's a tradeoff well worth it to us. Plus, my kids have some best friends in our building and it's a lovely community.

The thing is that everybody should really evaluate whether you really need 2000sq ft per person in your home. The cost of insisting on that arbitrary need for space is just so high: economically, socially, environmentally. Sure, some of you will need it, but it's like this "given" in our culture and it's just so incredibly untrue.

In our 4,000 sf suburban house, we have only 800 sf per person.

Please tell me, lady who has no home equity, how this is costing us economically, socially, and environmentally?

If you don't understand the basic facts of how suburban sprawl is detrimental to the environment, PP sure won't be able to educate you.

Not PP but there the suburbs are not detrimental at all to the enviornment. Better for people to live outside a city.

depends on the density and access to transit, but most sunbelt suburbs (with their attendant sprawl) are horrible for the environment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, more people live in cities so I'm not sure this is a fair assessment, but I see your point. I have friends who live (what to me is a nightmarish) suburban lifestyle and I think for them a lot of it is not valuing community in the same way I do and taking comfort in material things. I personally don't get it.

It’s odd you think cities have more community feel, I find the opposite

Really? Well, different experiences I guess. I grew up in Fairfax and my parents never talked to any of the neighbors. None of the neighbors seemed to talk to each other either. It was a very "each man for himself" kind of place. I played at a friend's house in the summer until I was 9 and that was it. There were no block parties, clothing swaps, school events, babysitting swaps, dinner parties, pizza parties, neighborhood holiday events like I have now living in NW DC. We are all looking out for each other. We keep each other abreast of things in the hood, at school, and fun things to do. We watch each others' kids and invite people over all the time. I know shop owners and neighbors and the librarians by name. I know many more community people by sight. Hell, I know my local politicians! I help clean up parks and flag issues for the community to deal with. I regularly see friends just walking down the street and decide to have impromptu fun. We had zero of that in Fairfax.

Lived in a large apartment building in Dupont for four years. Never knew any neighbors, it was so transient.

Please acknowledge that the setup you have in NW DC applies to a tiny sliver of DC that has SFHs while still within city limits.

lol what is this nonsense? MOST of DC is zoned for SFH and consists of such. Have you ever been to DC?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused by the people who want yards. I think I'd rather live right next to or very close by some awesome parks. When I was growing up, we only played in our yard until we were 6 or 7, then it was just playdates with other kids.... which you'd have to drive to in the 'burbs. My city kids walk around the block to play with their friends. Sure you need money, but DC is amazing for having close-in neighborhoods with green space and parks and being pretty safe.

You can't go nude in your own hot tub in a close by awesome park. For that you need a private yard.

Um, ok. I'm totally sold on driving an hour to work and eating at applebees because going nude in my hot tub is my favorite activity.

Suburbs have their own job hubs plus WFH is just as prevalent here.

Ethnic food is better in the burbs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, more people live in cities so I'm not sure this is a fair assessment, but I see your point. I have friends who live (what to me is a nightmarish) suburban lifestyle and I think for them a lot of it is not valuing community in the same way I do and taking comfort in material things. I personally don't get it.

It’s odd you think cities have more community feel, I find the opposite

Really? Well, different experiences I guess. I grew up in Fairfax and my parents never talked to any of the neighbors. None of the neighbors seemed to talk to each other either. It was a very "each man for himself" kind of place. I played at a friend's house in the summer until I was 9 and that was it. There were no block parties, clothing swaps, school events, babysitting swaps, dinner parties, pizza parties, neighborhood holiday events like I have now living in NW DC. We are all looking out for each other. We keep each other abreast of things in the hood, at school, and fun things to do. We watch each others' kids and invite people over all the time. I know shop owners and neighbors and the librarians by name. I know many more community people by sight. Hell, I know my local politicians! I help clean up parks and flag issues for the community to deal with. I regularly see friends just walking down the street and decide to have impromptu fun. We had zero of that in Fairfax.

Lived in a large apartment building in Dupont for four years. Never knew any neighbors, it was so transient.

Please acknowledge that the setup you have in NW DC applies to a tiny sliver of DC that has SFHs while still within city limits.

Anonymous wrote:I'm confused by the people who want yards. I think I'd rather live right next to or very close by some awesome parks. When I was growing up, we only played in our yard until we were 6 or 7, then it was just playdates with other kids.... which you'd have to drive to in the 'burbs. My city kids walk around the block to play with their friends. Sure you need money, but DC is amazing for having close-in neighborhoods with green space and parks and being pretty safe.

My kids can play in my backyard or they can walk two blocks to an awesome park, or they can bike ten blocks to two other amazing parks, in the burbs. It's very nice to have your own green space.

Anonymous wrote:In second-tier and third-tier cities, anyone with means lives in the suburbs. These suburbs rival each other and ones of major cities in terms of wealth.

BS. There are some beautiful, historic urban neighborhoods (with yards) in these cities where many wealthy and even UMC people live.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I would never live in a dangerous neighborhood if I lived in the city so this is irrelevant.

It's very relevant because the average American can only afford housing in the dangerous areas of major cities. Sure, Cleveland Park is beautiful and walkable and relatively safe, but you need to be able to afford a house that is $2.5M+ and pay $50k a year/kid for private school because the public schools stink. The average American cannot do that, which is a very big reason that they don't live in urban areas.

Or (shocker!) you could live in an apartment like we do. Sure, we're still technically rich (HHI 250k) but we can't buy a home in CP, but we love it here so we rent. It's right near so much nature, very safe, it's a tradeoff well worth it to us. Plus, my kids have some best friends in our building and it's a lovely community.

The thing is that everybody should really evaluate whether you really need 2000sq ft per person in your home. The cost of insisting on that arbitrary need for space is just so high: economically, socially, environmentally. Sure, some of you will need it, but it's like this "given" in our culture and it's just so incredibly untrue.

In our 4,000 sf suburban house, we have only 800 sf per person.

Please tell me, lady who has no home equity, how this is costing us economically, socially, and environmentally?

If you don't understand the basic facts of how suburban sprawl is detrimental to the environment, PP sure won't be able to educate you.

Not PP but there the suburbs are not detrimental at all to the enviornment. Better for people to live outside a city.