Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:22205 is more desirable than 22207 because of walk ability and semi- normal house prices

That's stupid talk, "semi-normal" prices mean lower prices which in fact means less desirable.

When price is high it is desirable, when price is lower it is less desirable.

Put that in your walkability pipe and smoke that.

Anonymous wrote:22205 is more desirable than 22207 because of walk ability and semi- normal house prices

Anonymous wrote:Okay, Arlington may suck, but at least our kids go to school once in a while. This was actually a factor when deciding between Arlington and close-in Fairfax/McLean - they don't close schools at the drop of a hat and stay closed forever.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really? We saw new houses with the same SF in McLean and Arlington for more or less the same price. The only difference was the size of the yard. Since we're not allergic to grass, and didn't like the way so many houses in Arlington take up almost all the yard, McLean was the easy choice for us.

Nope. Not if you were in the walkable areas of Arlington- not for a minute. In 22207- probably though.

Anonymous wrote:Okay, Arlington may suck, but at least our kids go to school once in a while. This was actually a factor when deciding between Arlington and close-in Fairfax/McLean - they don't close schools at the drop of a hat and stay closed forever.

Anonymous wrote:Really? We saw new houses with the same SF in McLean and Arlington for more or less the same price. The only difference was the size of the yard. Since we're not allergic to grass, and didn't like the way so many houses in Arlington take up almost all the yard, McLean was the easy choice for us.

Anonymous wrote:Really? We saw new houses with the same SF in McLean and Arlington for more or less the same price. The only difference was the size of the yard. Since we're not allergic to grass, and didn't like the way so many houses in Arlington take up almost all the yard, McLean was the easy choice for us.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/where-we-live/wp/2014/01/09/top-10-most-expensive-homes-sold-in-the-washington-d-c-region-in-2013/

Nothing from Arlington here, plenty from Great Falls and McLean. Seems the Post thinks price per square foot is mostly relevant to commercial realtors.

Which is why an 1,800 square foot house in Clarendon goes for $1.5 million. Yeah- price per square footage means nothing

There is also no room to build a mansion here. All lots have been divided and they are tiny.

Anonymous wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/where-we-live/wp/2014/01/09/top-10-most-expensive-homes-sold-in-the-washington-d-c-region-in-2013/

Nothing from Arlington here, plenty from Great Falls and McLean. Seems the Post thinks price per square foot is mostly relevant to commercial realtors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The highest-income census tracts in each of Bethesda, Chevy Chase, Potomac, McLean and Great Falls are higher than their Arlington counterpart, and the homes in DC are far more elegant. Arlington is basically Silver Spring OD'd on steroids.

And yet, Arlington 22207 has the same average household income as McLean 22101 and higher than McLean 22102.

Facts speak. The census tracts in Arlington alongside McLean are higher income, younger, better educated. All this, despite half the lot sizes.

Feeling a little concerned about the future?

22207 has lower incomes than 22101, and 22101 has census tracts with higher incomes than any census tracts in Arlington, including those adjacent to McLean. Repeating the same lie repeatedly won't make it true.

Lying? According to the last census, 22207 HHI is 201; 22101 is 205....not much difference.

Also according to the census--the Arlington side of the Arlington McLean border has a higher HHI - 225 to 211.

Www.census.com