Anonymous wrote:Culture is a big factor. I am a mom of 2 and I've NEVER wanted to be in the burbs. I'm a city girl and was raised in a big MW city. I love dining out aka not having to make meals constantly as a busy mom. But I'm an outlier. I have trouble clicking with most people in my now suburban neighborhood because I pretty much hate the boring burb lifestyle. I don't want to play with my kids in the yard and prefer to go to a museum but we're all different. So I can't answer your question but know that an ask the same questions! For us it's financial and to do with school for kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where in Europe have you lived? Because Europe is made of many different countries and not everyone lives in a dense walkable area. I have lots of family in Denmark and all the ones with kids live in the suburbs. Their lives are not much different than ours, to be honest. They drive to work and to do their grocery shopping. They drive their kids to activities. They might have fewer cars but that's because cars and gas are a lot more expensive there.
One of my pet peeves on this forum is when people reference Europe like it's one country. Things in Albania are going to be very different than things in Norway. There isn't one European culture.

Where in Denmark? We have family and colleagues who live there and most live in suburbs other than a couple in Copenhagen. And yes, they have cars and the suburbs are more spread out. But the rail system in Denmark (at least in the Copenhagen region) is so much better than anything we have here. My BIL commutes into central Copenhagen 4 days a week via rail from a community about as far from the city as Frederick is from DC, and it's unreal how easy and affordable it is. He bikes to the rail station, the trains are frequent, and he spends maybe one hour total commuting (door to door, includes getting to and from the station and waits for trains). When we visited last summer my DH and I were lamenting how much easier it is for them to live in a nice quiet little suburb far from the busyness (and expense) of the city, but for us that would be hours a day or rearranging work schedules to accommodate a really limited MARC schedule to take trains to the wrong part of the city and then switch to bus or metro to get across town.

Also their house for a family of four is maybe 1500-1800 sq ft, and on a densely populated street (technically SFHs but just little hedges between houses and people have small patios, not huge yards). Also people walk and bike a lot around their suburb, at least in the warmer months, though most people have a car and many have two for a family. They definitely drive a lot (and when we went with them to their rural summer house, we drove everywhere) but they are not dependent on driving the way we are her in the US.

They pay through the nose in taxes but have great healthcare and a very good retirement system so they don't worry about having to work until their 80 or being bankrupted by a health emergency.

To me, their lives looked like ours except better in almost every way except the line dry their clothes and the culture is a little homogenous and personally conservative in a way that feels cold to my American sensibilities.

You can do the same thing from Northern Jersey or Connecticut to NYC. DC is not a major employment center, try commuting by light rail from 60 miles away into a secondary Danish city and see how that goes for you

Exactly. While DC has had interurban commuter rail for over 100 years like other east coast cities, it was always infrequent. Towns like Kensington or Bowie just didn’t have the population to ever demand high frequencies way back then or now. And as previously stated, DC is a mid-size city, so a robust commuter rail network with high frequency to far off towns never developed.

Until recently people often derided DC as a “Small Southern Town,” a backwater so to speak. Only within the past 50 years has this area aspired to world-class status, and it still lags.

Philadelphia and NYC were historically much larger employment centers, and so commuting to quaint, historic commuter suburbs out in the countryside has always been the norm.

Copenhagen is also a mid-size city. But go on making excuses.

Copenhagen is the largest city in Denmark. It makes sense that it is a hub for transit in Denmark. DC is smaller than all of its neighboring jurisdictions except for Alexandria City

Weird goalpost shifting. DC is the capital city in a country 55x larger than Denmark. We have far more money and resources and it makes sense that the US would have multiple transit hubs (and that these hubs would be connected to one another). Also, the idea that the district of DC is smaller than it's suburbs is beside the point -- I was comparing "DC and environs" with "Copenhagen and environs" -- they are very similarly sized cities with similarly sized suburban populations. It's just that Copenhagen is designed to efficiently get those suburban populations in and out of the city via public transportation (and to efficiently move residents, commuters, and visitors around the city itself) and DC is not.

This is why DC has massive traffic and air pollution issues and Copenhagen does not. It has nothing to do with Copenhagen being the largest city in Denmark (with the EU, being the largest city in a small country is irrelevant -- like DC, Copenhagen has a huge population of transplants from elsewhere in the EU) or DC having large suburbs. It has to do with policy choices, and DC and surrounding areas making bad, short-sited policy choices that result in spiraling issues related to traffic, commute times, and affordability in the region.

I don't even like Copenhagen that much! But it's actually a good example of how much better DC could be with proper infrastructure and planning.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where in Europe have you lived? Because Europe is made of many different countries and not everyone lives in a dense walkable area. I have lots of family in Denmark and all the ones with kids live in the suburbs. Their lives are not much different than ours, to be honest. They drive to work and to do their grocery shopping. They drive their kids to activities. They might have fewer cars but that's because cars and gas are a lot more expensive there.
One of my pet peeves on this forum is when people reference Europe like it's one country. Things in Albania are going to be very different than things in Norway. There isn't one European culture.

Where in Denmark? We have family and colleagues who live there and most live in suburbs other than a couple in Copenhagen. And yes, they have cars and the suburbs are more spread out. But the rail system in Denmark (at least in the Copenhagen region) is so much better than anything we have here. My BIL commutes into central Copenhagen 4 days a week via rail from a community about as far from the city as Frederick is from DC, and it's unreal how easy and affordable it is. He bikes to the rail station, the trains are frequent, and he spends maybe one hour total commuting (door to door, includes getting to and from the station and waits for trains). When we visited last summer my DH and I were lamenting how much easier it is for them to live in a nice quiet little suburb far from the busyness (and expense) of the city, but for us that would be hours a day or rearranging work schedules to accommodate a really limited MARC schedule to take trains to the wrong part of the city and then switch to bus or metro to get across town.

Also their house for a family of four is maybe 1500-1800 sq ft, and on a densely populated street (technically SFHs but just little hedges between houses and people have small patios, not huge yards). Also people walk and bike a lot around their suburb, at least in the warmer months, though most people have a car and many have two for a family. They definitely drive a lot (and when we went with them to their rural summer house, we drove everywhere) but they are not dependent on driving the way we are her in the US.

They pay through the nose in taxes but have great healthcare and a very good retirement system so they don't worry about having to work until their 80 or being bankrupted by a health emergency.

To me, their lives looked like ours except better in almost every way except the line dry their clothes and the culture is a little homogenous and personally conservative in a way that feels cold to my American sensibilities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where in Europe have you lived? Because Europe is made of many different countries and not everyone lives in a dense walkable area. I have lots of family in Denmark and all the ones with kids live in the suburbs. Their lives are not much different than ours, to be honest. They drive to work and to do their grocery shopping. They drive their kids to activities. They might have fewer cars but that's because cars and gas are a lot more expensive there.
One of my pet peeves on this forum is when people reference Europe like it's one country. Things in Albania are going to be very different than things in Norway. There isn't one European culture.

Where in Denmark? We have family and colleagues who live there and most live in suburbs other than a couple in Copenhagen. And yes, they have cars and the suburbs are more spread out. But the rail system in Denmark (at least in the Copenhagen region) is so much better than anything we have here. My BIL commutes into central Copenhagen 4 days a week via rail from a community about as far from the city as Frederick is from DC, and it's unreal how easy and affordable it is. He bikes to the rail station, the trains are frequent, and he spends maybe one hour total commuting (door to door, includes getting to and from the station and waits for trains). When we visited last summer my DH and I were lamenting how much easier it is for them to live in a nice quiet little suburb far from the busyness (and expense) of the city, but for us that would be hours a day or rearranging work schedules to accommodate a really limited MARC schedule to take trains to the wrong part of the city and then switch to bus or metro to get across town.

Also their house for a family of four is maybe 1500-1800 sq ft, and on a densely populated street (technically SFHs but just little hedges between houses and people have small patios, not huge yards). Also people walk and bike a lot around their suburb, at least in the warmer months, though most people have a car and many have two for a family. They definitely drive a lot (and when we went with them to their rural summer house, we drove everywhere) but they are not dependent on driving the way we are her in the US.

They pay through the nose in taxes but have great healthcare and a very good retirement system so they don't worry about having to work until their 80 or being bankrupted by a health emergency.

To me, their lives looked like ours except better in almost every way except the line dry their clothes and the culture is a little homogenous and personally conservative in a way that feels cold to my American sensibilities.

You can do the same thing from Northern Jersey or Connecticut to NYC. DC is not a major employment center, try commuting by light rail from 60 miles away into a secondary Danish city and see how that goes for you

Exactly. While DC has had interurban commuter rail for over 100 years like other east coast cities, it was always infrequent. Towns like Kensington or Bowie just didn’t have the population to ever demand high frequencies way back then or now. And as previously stated, DC is a mid-size city, so a robust commuter rail network with high frequency to far off towns never developed.

Until recently people often derided DC as a “Small Southern Town,” a backwater so to speak. Only within the past 50 years has this area aspired to world-class status, and it still lags.

Philadelphia and NYC were historically much larger employment centers, and so commuting to quaint, historic commuter suburbs out in the countryside has always been the norm.

Copenhagen is also a mid-size city. But go on making excuses.

Copenhagen is the largest city in Denmark. It makes sense that it is a hub for transit in Denmark. DC is smaller than all of its neighboring jurisdictions except for Alexandria City

Weird goalpost shifting. DC is the capital city in a country 55x larger than Denmark. We have far more money and resources and it makes sense that the US would have multiple transit hubs (and that these hubs would be connected to one another). Also, the idea that the district of DC is smaller than it's suburbs is beside the point -- I was comparing "DC and environs" with "Copenhagen and environs" -- they are very similarly sized cities with similarly sized suburban populations. It's just that Copenhagen is designed to efficiently get those suburban populations in and out of the city via public transportation (and to efficiently move residents, commuters, and visitors around the city itself) and DC is not.

This is why DC has massive traffic and air pollution issues and Copenhagen does not. It has nothing to do with Copenhagen being the largest city in Denmark (with the EU, being the largest city in a small country is irrelevant -- like DC, Copenhagen has a huge population of transplants from elsewhere in the EU) or DC having large suburbs. It has to do with policy choices, and DC and surrounding areas making bad, short-sited policy choices that result in spiraling issues related to traffic, commute times, and affordability in the region.

I don't even like Copenhagen that much! But it's actually a good example of how much better DC could be with proper infrastructure and planning.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where in Europe have you lived? Because Europe is made of many different countries and not everyone lives in a dense walkable area. I have lots of family in Denmark and all the ones with kids live in the suburbs. Their lives are not much different than ours, to be honest. They drive to work and to do their grocery shopping. They drive their kids to activities. They might have fewer cars but that's because cars and gas are a lot more expensive there.
One of my pet peeves on this forum is when people reference Europe like it's one country. Things in Albania are going to be very different than things in Norway. There isn't one European culture.

Where in Denmark? We have family and colleagues who live there and most live in suburbs other than a couple in Copenhagen. And yes, they have cars and the suburbs are more spread out. But the rail system in Denmark (at least in the Copenhagen region) is so much better than anything we have here. My BIL commutes into central Copenhagen 4 days a week via rail from a community about as far from the city as Frederick is from DC, and it's unreal how easy and affordable it is. He bikes to the rail station, the trains are frequent, and he spends maybe one hour total commuting (door to door, includes getting to and from the station and waits for trains). When we visited last summer my DH and I were lamenting how much easier it is for them to live in a nice quiet little suburb far from the busyness (and expense) of the city, but for us that would be hours a day or rearranging work schedules to accommodate a really limited MARC schedule to take trains to the wrong part of the city and then switch to bus or metro to get across town.

Also their house for a family of four is maybe 1500-1800 sq ft, and on a densely populated street (technically SFHs but just little hedges between houses and people have small patios, not huge yards). Also people walk and bike a lot around their suburb, at least in the warmer months, though most people have a car and many have two for a family. They definitely drive a lot (and when we went with them to their rural summer house, we drove everywhere) but they are not dependent on driving the way we are her in the US.

They pay through the nose in taxes but have great healthcare and a very good retirement system so they don't worry about having to work until their 80 or being bankrupted by a health emergency.

To me, their lives looked like ours except better in almost every way except the line dry their clothes and the culture is a little homogenous and personally conservative in a way that feels cold to my American sensibilities.

You can do the same thing from Northern Jersey or Connecticut to NYC. DC is not a major employment center, try commuting by light rail from 60 miles away into a secondary Danish city and see how that goes for you

Exactly. While DC has had interurban commuter rail for over 100 years like other east coast cities, it was always infrequent. Towns like Kensington or Bowie just didn’t have the population to ever demand high frequencies way back then or now. And as previously stated, DC is a mid-size city, so a robust commuter rail network with high frequency to far off towns never developed.

Until recently people often derided DC as a “Small Southern Town,” a backwater so to speak. Only within the past 50 years has this area aspired to world-class status, and it still lags.

Philadelphia and NYC were historically much larger employment centers, and so commuting to quaint, historic commuter suburbs out in the countryside has always been the norm.

Copenhagen is also a mid-size city. But go on making excuses.

Copenhagen is the largest city in Denmark. It makes sense that it is a hub for transit in Denmark. DC is smaller than all of its neighboring jurisdictions except for Alexandria City

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also think it’s rooted in the white flight, “cities are dangerous” mentality that began in the 1950s and 60s in the US and never ended. So like most things in the US, it’s about race.

No, it's really not about race. I've done the city and suburb living and eventually valued a bigger newer house, more land, more privacy, easier access to highway more than filth, grime, noise and taxes.

PPs mentioned “loud foreigners”, “smelly food”, “foreign languages”, etc… Are you sure it’s not really about race?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where in Europe have you lived? Because Europe is made of many different countries and not everyone lives in a dense walkable area. I have lots of family in Denmark and all the ones with kids live in the suburbs. Their lives are not much different than ours, to be honest. They drive to work and to do their grocery shopping. They drive their kids to activities. They might have fewer cars but that's because cars and gas are a lot more expensive there.
One of my pet peeves on this forum is when people reference Europe like it's one country. Things in Albania are going to be very different than things in Norway. There isn't one European culture.

Where in Denmark? We have family and colleagues who live there and most live in suburbs other than a couple in Copenhagen. And yes, they have cars and the suburbs are more spread out. But the rail system in Denmark (at least in the Copenhagen region) is so much better than anything we have here. My BIL commutes into central Copenhagen 4 days a week via rail from a community about as far from the city as Frederick is from DC, and it's unreal how easy and affordable it is. He bikes to the rail station, the trains are frequent, and he spends maybe one hour total commuting (door to door, includes getting to and from the station and waits for trains). When we visited last summer my DH and I were lamenting how much easier it is for them to live in a nice quiet little suburb far from the busyness (and expense) of the city, but for us that would be hours a day or rearranging work schedules to accommodate a really limited MARC schedule to take trains to the wrong part of the city and then switch to bus or metro to get across town.

Also their house for a family of four is maybe 1500-1800 sq ft, and on a densely populated street (technically SFHs but just little hedges between houses and people have small patios, not huge yards). Also people walk and bike a lot around their suburb, at least in the warmer months, though most people have a car and many have two for a family. They definitely drive a lot (and when we went with them to their rural summer house, we drove everywhere) but they are not dependent on driving the way we are her in the US.

They pay through the nose in taxes but have great healthcare and a very good retirement system so they don't worry about having to work until their 80 or being bankrupted by a health emergency.

To me, their lives looked like ours except better in almost every way except the line dry their clothes and the culture is a little homogenous and personally conservative in a way that feels cold to my American sensibilities.

You can do the same thing from Northern Jersey or Connecticut to NYC. DC is not a major employment center, try commuting by light rail from 60 miles away into a secondary Danish city and see how that goes for you

That's a false comparison because Denmark is a much smaller country. Copenhagen is comparable in size to DC, not NYC. And the next largest city is Aarhus, which has fewer than 300k people in it (by comparison, this is only a bit larger than Richmond). People who work in Aarhus do not have to live 60 miles away to find more space or a slower pace of life because it's just not that crowded.

Within the EU, Copenhagen is a DC-like city, but they've focused investment on public infrastructure in a way that makes it a far more livable city. The cities comparable to NYC in Europe (Paris, Madrid, London, though the last obviously not in the EU) are way more expensive and crowded but still have better public infrastructure than most US cities (LA is a massive city with atrocious public transportation).

The US just doesn't give AF about public infrastructure, and it makes our cities less pleasant to live in. So then everyone flees for the suburbs, and since neither federal nor state governments give AF about public infrastructure, these suburbs are also not connected via public infrastructure (and connected to what, anyway -- what public transit system could the suburbs of Houston link up to anyway?). So everyone is car dependent and Americans don't actually understand how nice our lives could be with a functional society where we use collective wealth to improve overall quality of life, productivity, efficiency, etc.

But yes, go on thinking the livability of European cities is some kind of mirage that can't possibly be true, and dig in on American-style capitalism which sucks for all but a few people at the top.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where in Europe have you lived? Because Europe is made of many different countries and not everyone lives in a dense walkable area. I have lots of family in Denmark and all the ones with kids live in the suburbs. Their lives are not much different than ours, to be honest. They drive to work and to do their grocery shopping. They drive their kids to activities. They might have fewer cars but that's because cars and gas are a lot more expensive there.
One of my pet peeves on this forum is when people reference Europe like it's one country. Things in Albania are going to be very different than things in Norway. There isn't one European culture.

Where in Denmark? We have family and colleagues who live there and most live in suburbs other than a couple in Copenhagen. And yes, they have cars and the suburbs are more spread out. But the rail system in Denmark (at least in the Copenhagen region) is so much better than anything we have here. My BIL commutes into central Copenhagen 4 days a week via rail from a community about as far from the city as Frederick is from DC, and it's unreal how easy and affordable it is. He bikes to the rail station, the trains are frequent, and he spends maybe one hour total commuting (door to door, includes getting to and from the station and waits for trains). When we visited last summer my DH and I were lamenting how much easier it is for them to live in a nice quiet little suburb far from the busyness (and expense) of the city, but for us that would be hours a day or rearranging work schedules to accommodate a really limited MARC schedule to take trains to the wrong part of the city and then switch to bus or metro to get across town.

Also their house for a family of four is maybe 1500-1800 sq ft, and on a densely populated street (technically SFHs but just little hedges between houses and people have small patios, not huge yards). Also people walk and bike a lot around their suburb, at least in the warmer months, though most people have a car and many have two for a family. They definitely drive a lot (and when we went with them to their rural summer house, we drove everywhere) but they are not dependent on driving the way we are her in the US.

They pay through the nose in taxes but have great healthcare and a very good retirement system so they don't worry about having to work until their 80 or being bankrupted by a health emergency.

To me, their lives looked like ours except better in almost every way except the line dry their clothes and the culture is a little homogenous and personally conservative in a way that feels cold to my American sensibilities.

You can do the same thing from Northern Jersey or Connecticut to NYC. DC is not a major employment center, try commuting by light rail from 60 miles away into a secondary Danish city and see how that goes for you

Exactly. While DC has had interurban commuter rail for over 100 years like other east coast cities, it was always infrequent. Towns like Kensington or Bowie just didn’t have the population to ever demand high frequencies way back then or now. And as previously stated, DC is a mid-size city, so a robust commuter rail network with high frequency to far off towns never developed.

Until recently people often derided DC as a “Small Southern Town,” a backwater so to speak. Only within the past 50 years has this area aspired to world-class status, and it still lags.

Philadelphia and NYC were historically much larger employment centers, and so commuting to quaint, historic commuter suburbs out in the countryside has always been the norm.

Copenhagen is also a mid-size city. But go on making excuses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cities have low performing public schools compared to suburbs.

Hmm, I wonder why? Could it be the racial segregation of the past, white flight once segregation was outlawed, the lack of funding as a result of that white flight? Again, it always comes back to the systemic racism this country was founded on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where in Europe have you lived? Because Europe is made of many different countries and not everyone lives in a dense walkable area. I have lots of family in Denmark and all the ones with kids live in the suburbs. Their lives are not much different than ours, to be honest. They drive to work and to do their grocery shopping. They drive their kids to activities. They might have fewer cars but that's because cars and gas are a lot more expensive there.
One of my pet peeves on this forum is when people reference Europe like it's one country. Things in Albania are going to be very different than things in Norway. There isn't one European culture.

Where in Denmark? We have family and colleagues who live there and most live in suburbs other than a couple in Copenhagen. And yes, they have cars and the suburbs are more spread out. But the rail system in Denmark (at least in the Copenhagen region) is so much better than anything we have here. My BIL commutes into central Copenhagen 4 days a week via rail from a community about as far from the city as Frederick is from DC, and it's unreal how easy and affordable it is. He bikes to the rail station, the trains are frequent, and he spends maybe one hour total commuting (door to door, includes getting to and from the station and waits for trains). When we visited last summer my DH and I were lamenting how much easier it is for them to live in a nice quiet little suburb far from the busyness (and expense) of the city, but for us that would be hours a day or rearranging work schedules to accommodate a really limited MARC schedule to take trains to the wrong part of the city and then switch to bus or metro to get across town.

Also their house for a family of four is maybe 1500-1800 sq ft, and on a densely populated street (technically SFHs but just little hedges between houses and people have small patios, not huge yards). Also people walk and bike a lot around their suburb, at least in the warmer months, though most people have a car and many have two for a family. They definitely drive a lot (and when we went with them to their rural summer house, we drove everywhere) but they are not dependent on driving the way we are her in the US.

They pay through the nose in taxes but have great healthcare and a very good retirement system so they don't worry about having to work until their 80 or being bankrupted by a health emergency.

To me, their lives looked like ours except better in almost every way except the line dry their clothes and the culture is a little homogenous and personally conservative in a way that feels cold to my American sensibilities.

You can do the same thing from Northern Jersey or Connecticut to NYC. DC is not a major employment center, try commuting by light rail from 60 miles away into a secondary Danish city and see how that goes for you

Exactly. While DC has had interurban commuter rail for over 100 years like other east coast cities, it was always infrequent. Towns like Kensington or Bowie just didn’t have the population to ever demand high frequencies way back then or now. And as previously stated, DC is a mid-size city, so a robust commuter rail network with high frequency to far off towns never developed.

Until recently people often derided DC as a “Small Southern Town,” a backwater so to speak. Only within the past 50 years has this area aspired to world-class status, and it still lags.

Philadelphia and NYC were historically much larger employment centers, and so commuting to quaint, historic commuter suburbs out in the countryside has always been the norm.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cities have low performing public schools compared to suburbs.

Hmm, I wonder why? Could it be the racial segregation of the past, white flight once segregation was outlawed, the lack of funding as a result of that white flight? Again, it always comes back to the systemic racism this country was founded on.