Anonymous wrote:This thread has really triggered the Hill apologists. We get it, you love the neighborhood warts and all. Those of us who moved to NW have no regrets about our decisions either, so they just need to stop trying to convince us we really should!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, 2 kids to Brent, 8 years each. They walked to school together without parents from when eldest was in 3rd grade, from East Cap. We took the self-release-walk-home-independently option for them at school for 4th and 5th, like many other families in their peer groups. We gave them whistles, reflective vests and LED lights for helmets and on bikes and scooters and watch phones to call or 911 us if need be. We taught them to cross streets safely and to be aware of their surroundings. The youngest just graduated in May. Never had any kind of problem in all weather.

Well, this is great for you, but very few parents would be comfortable doing this. I say that as a Hill resident.

+1, I live on the Hill with no intention of leaving and no one I know does this. I do think there is an older cohort of parents whose kids were/are more free range, but the culture has changed. Newer families moving to the Hill are higher income, more likely to have nannies even once their kids are school age (also lots of people with family living with them or nearby), and their kids don't do this. The old guard on the Hill was more likely to be dual feds or even one fed, one SAHP, Gen X hippies/hipsters where having more free range kids in the city made sense to them. Newer folks are more risk averse.

It's a cultural shift that I think the PP, whose kids are clearly now older, may not realize it's happened because they don't socialize with the people who now have kids in elementary. This Hill is less free range now.

I'm one of the older parents. If what you're saying is true, that makes me really sad. What is the point of living in CH if your kids can't walk to school/the park/to their friends' house?

I know that CH people love to look down on upper NW but AU Park has this in spades - many kids start walking on their own to Janney in 4th or 5th grade. And they can easily walk to the park, library, ice cream, friends houses, etc. And middle and hs kids take the bus or metro or bike to Georgetown, Bethesda, Dupont, or even a Nats game

Houses in AU Park cost a bomb, like those in the more upscale swathes of the Hill. So we should cut our community ties on the Hill after many years of living here, of putting crazy sweat equity into homes we love, to trade up for super crowded and badly led Deal and J-R? Not worth it. We’re probably better off sticking with the Ward 6 DCPS middle schools if we lack charter options, hiring tutors and heading to Walls or Banneker if we can, or parochial school. Things are different for Hill families with much shallower community and real estate ties.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, 2 kids to Brent, 8 years each. They walked to school together without parents from when eldest was in 3rd grade, from East Cap. We took the self-release-walk-home-independently option for them at school for 4th and 5th, like many other families in their peer groups. We gave them whistles, reflective vests and LED lights for helmets and on bikes and scooters and watch phones to call or 911 us if need be. We taught them to cross streets safely and to be aware of their surroundings. The youngest just graduated in May. Never had any kind of problem in all weather.

Well, this is great for you, but very few parents would be comfortable doing this. I say that as a Hill resident.

+1, I live on the Hill with no intention of leaving and no one I know does this. I do think there is an older cohort of parents whose kids were/are more free range, but the culture has changed. Newer families moving to the Hill are higher income, more likely to have nannies even once their kids are school age (also lots of people with family living with them or nearby), and their kids don't do this. The old guard on the Hill was more likely to be dual feds or even one fed, one SAHP, Gen X hippies/hipsters where having more free range kids in the city made sense to them. Newer folks are more risk averse.

It's a cultural shift that I think the PP, whose kids are clearly now older, may not realize it's happened because they don't socialize with the people who now have kids in elementary. This Hill is less free range now.

I'm one of the older parents. If what you're saying is true, that makes me really sad. What is the point of living in CH if your kids can't walk to school/the park/to their friends' house?

I know that CH people love to look down on upper NW but AU Park has this in spades - many kids start walking on their own to Janney in 4th or 5th grade. And they can easily walk to the park, library, ice cream, friends houses, etc. And middle and hs kids take the bus or metro or bike to Georgetown, Bethesda, Dupont, or even a Nats game

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, 2 kids to Brent, 8 years each. They walked to school together without parents from when eldest was in 3rd grade, from East Cap. We took the self-release-walk-home-independently option for them at school for 4th and 5th, like many other families in their peer groups. We gave them whistles, reflective vests and LED lights for helmets and on bikes and scooters and watch phones to call or 911 us if need be. We taught them to cross streets safely and to be aware of their surroundings. The youngest just graduated in May. Never had any kind of problem in all weather.

Well, this is great for you, but very few parents would be comfortable doing this. I say that as a Hill resident.

+1, I live on the Hill with no intention of leaving and no one I know does this. I do think there is an older cohort of parents whose kids were/are more free range, but the culture has changed. Newer families moving to the Hill are higher income, more likely to have nannies even once their kids are school age (also lots of people with family living with them or nearby), and their kids don't do this. The old guard on the Hill was more likely to be dual feds or even one fed, one SAHP, Gen X hippies/hipsters where having more free range kids in the city made sense to them. Newer folks are more risk averse.

It's a cultural shift that I think the PP, whose kids are clearly now older, may not realize it's happened because they don't socialize with the people who now have kids in elementary. This Hill is less free range now.

I'm one of the older parents. If what you're saying is true, that makes me really sad. What is the point of living in CH if your kids can't walk to school/the park/to their friends' house?

I know that CH people love to look down on upper NW but AU Park has this in spades - many kids start walking on their own to Janney in 4th or 5th grade. And they can easily walk to the park, library, ice cream, friends houses, etc. And middle and hs kids take the bus or metro or bike to Georgetown, Bethesda, Dupont, or even a Nats game

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, 2 kids to Brent, 8 years each. They walked to school together without parents from when eldest was in 3rd grade, from East Cap. We took the self-release-walk-home-independently option for them at school for 4th and 5th, like many other families in their peer groups. We gave them whistles, reflective vests and LED lights for helmets and on bikes and scooters and watch phones to call or 911 us if need be. We taught them to cross streets safely and to be aware of their surroundings. The youngest just graduated in May. Never had any kind of problem in all weather.

Well, this is great for you, but very few parents would be comfortable doing this. I say that as a Hill resident.

+1, I live on the Hill with no intention of leaving and no one I know does this. I do think there is an older cohort of parents whose kids were/are more free range, but the culture has changed. Newer families moving to the Hill are higher income, more likely to have nannies even once their kids are school age (also lots of people with family living with them or nearby), and their kids don't do this. The old guard on the Hill was more likely to be dual feds or even one fed, one SAHP, Gen X hippies/hipsters where having more free range kids in the city made sense to them. Newer folks are more risk averse.

It's a cultural shift that I think the PP, whose kids are clearly now older, may not realize it's happened because they don't socialize with the people who now have kids in elementary. This Hill is less free range now.

I'm one of the older parents. If what you're saying is true, that makes me really sad. What is the point of living in CH if your kids can't walk to school/the park/to their friends' house?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, 2 kids to Brent, 8 years each. They walked to school together without parents from when eldest was in 3rd grade, from East Cap. We took the self-release-walk-home-independently option for them at school for 4th and 5th, like many other families in their peer groups. We gave them whistles, reflective vests and LED lights for helmets and on bikes and scooters and watch phones to call or 911 us if need be. We taught them to cross streets safely and to be aware of their surroundings. The youngest just graduated in May. Never had any kind of problem in all weather.

Well, this is great for you, but very few parents would be comfortable doing this. I say that as a Hill resident.

+1, I live on the Hill with no intention of leaving and no one I know does this. I do think there is an older cohort of parents whose kids were/are more free range, but the culture has changed. Newer families moving to the Hill are higher income, more likely to have nannies even once their kids are school age (also lots of people with family living with them or nearby), and their kids don't do this. The old guard on the Hill was more likely to be dual feds or even one fed, one SAHP, Gen X hippies/hipsters where having more free range kids in the city made sense to them. Newer folks are more risk averse.

It's a cultural shift that I think the PP, whose kids are clearly now older, may not realize it's happened because they don't socialize with the people who now have kids in elementary. This Hill is less free range now.

I'm one of the older parents. If what you're saying is true, that makes me really sad. What is the point of living in CH if your kids can't walk to school/the park/to their friends' house?

Your question is almost the right one, but it goes on too long. You should really ask: what is the point of living in CH?

I just left CH (relocation for a job) and for me, the point of living on the Hill is the community. We loved our neighbors. We loved Brent, warts and all. That being said, we left before the middle school years and I'm relieved we don't have to deal with figuring out a middle school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, 2 kids to Brent, 8 years each. They walked to school together without parents from when eldest was in 3rd grade, from East Cap. We took the self-release-walk-home-independently option for them at school for 4th and 5th, like many other families in their peer groups. We gave them whistles, reflective vests and LED lights for helmets and on bikes and scooters and watch phones to call or 911 us if need be. We taught them to cross streets safely and to be aware of their surroundings. The youngest just graduated in May. Never had any kind of problem in all weather.

Well, this is great for you, but very few parents would be comfortable doing this. I say that as a Hill resident.

+1, I live on the Hill with no intention of leaving and no one I know does this. I do think there is an older cohort of parents whose kids were/are more free range, but the culture has changed. Newer families moving to the Hill are higher income, more likely to have nannies even once their kids are school age (also lots of people with family living with them or nearby), and their kids don't do this. The old guard on the Hill was more likely to be dual feds or even one fed, one SAHP, Gen X hippies/hipsters where having more free range kids in the city made sense to them. Newer folks are more risk averse.

It's a cultural shift that I think the PP, whose kids are clearly now older, may not realize it's happened because they don't socialize with the people who now have kids in elementary. This Hill is less free range now.

I'm one of the older parents. If what you're saying is true, that makes me really sad. What is the point of living in CH if your kids can't walk to school/the park/to their friends' house?

Your question is almost the right one, but it goes on too long. You should really ask: what is the point of living in CH?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, 2 kids to Brent, 8 years each. They walked to school together without parents from when eldest was in 3rd grade, from East Cap. We took the self-release-walk-home-independently option for them at school for 4th and 5th, like many other families in their peer groups. We gave them whistles, reflective vests and LED lights for helmets and on bikes and scooters and watch phones to call or 911 us if need be. We taught them to cross streets safely and to be aware of their surroundings. The youngest just graduated in May. Never had any kind of problem in all weather.

Well, this is great for you, but very few parents would be comfortable doing this. I say that as a Hill resident.

+1, I live on the Hill with no intention of leaving and no one I know does this. I do think there is an older cohort of parents whose kids were/are more free range, but the culture has changed. Newer families moving to the Hill are higher income, more likely to have nannies even once their kids are school age (also lots of people with family living with them or nearby), and their kids don't do this. The old guard on the Hill was more likely to be dual feds or even one fed, one SAHP, Gen X hippies/hipsters where having more free range kids in the city made sense to them. Newer folks are more risk averse.

It's a cultural shift that I think the PP, whose kids are clearly now older, may not realize it's happened because they don't socialize with the people who now have kids in elementary. This Hill is less free range now.

I'm one of the older parents. If what you're saying is true, that makes me really sad. What is the point of living in CH if your kids can't walk to school/the park/to their friends' house?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know bikes are ridiculously controversial, but the Hill truly is a biker’s paradise now. Protected lanes on PA Ave mean you can do all your errands on bike really easily.

It’s great until your bike is stolen or vandalized. My kid biked to school and when he got out, his front tire was missing.

yeah. I have a very old bike and use bikeshare. my bike got stolen several times as a kid so seems normal though.

I had a cheap bike as a kid. If it had been stolen, I wouldn’t have had another bike because my parents couldn’t have afforded to buy me another one! To think that kids can have bikes stolen several times isn’t normal; it’s crazy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know bikes are ridiculously controversial, but the Hill truly is a biker’s paradise now. Protected lanes on PA Ave mean you can do all your errands on bike really easily.

It’s great until your bike is stolen or vandalized. My kid biked to school and when he got out, his front tire was missing.

yeah. I have a very old bike and use bikeshare. my bike got stolen several times as a kid so seems normal though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, you have to love all these people claiming that the suburb to which they moved is just as walkable as their old DC neighborhood. And of course virtually everyone in the burbs not working from home is driving to his or her job(s).

As a general matter, DC is far more walkable than the burbs.

For example, here are ratings from Walk Score:

DC 98

Alexandria 62
Arlington 71
Bethesda 45
Fairfax 54
McLean 23
Potomac 16
Reston 40
Tysons 60

Is this score an average rather than by neighborhood? Because my Arlington neighborhood’s walk score and walkability is much better than our friends who are zoned to Maury. We don’t use our car; they can’t do very many errands without their car. I think your list is meaningless if it’s not broken down by neighborhood.

I was just waiting for someone to respond that they live in the burbs and walk a lot.... "But but but I live next to the Rosslyn Metro and walk all the time, so this means that the suburbs are more walkable than DC."

Did you miss the part where PP wrote, "As a general matter, DC is far more walkable than the burbs."

Obviously, walkability depends on your specific location. These are just general numbers for DMV cities/communities as a whole.

Feel free to run your own numbers: https://www.walkscore.com/

No I didn’t miss that part. What I’m saying is that comparing all of DC to say all of Alexandria is meaningless.

So, you also think it is meaningless to say that DC generally is more walkable than, say, Potomac? Or meaningless to say that Manhattan is more generally walkable than, say, Fayetteville, NC?

Got it. Everything is relative and meaningless, and we can't generalize about anything. Let's all embrace nihilism and move to the burbs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know bikes are ridiculously controversial, but the Hill truly is a biker’s paradise now. Protected lanes on PA Ave mean you can do all your errands on bike really easily.

It’s great until your bike is stolen or vandalized. My kid biked to school and when he got out, his front tire was missing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, 2 kids to Brent, 8 years each. They walked to school together without parents from when eldest was in 3rd grade, from East Cap. We took the self-release-walk-home-independently option for them at school for 4th and 5th, like many other families in their peer groups. We gave them whistles, reflective vests and LED lights for helmets and on bikes and scooters and watch phones to call or 911 us if need be. We taught them to cross streets safely and to be aware of their surroundings. The youngest just graduated in May. Never had any kind of problem in all weather.

Well, this is great for you, but very few parents would be comfortable doing this. I say that as a Hill resident.

+1, I live on the Hill with no intention of leaving and no one I know does this. I do think there is an older cohort of parents whose kids were/are more free range, but the culture has changed. Newer families moving to the Hill are higher income, more likely to have nannies even once their kids are school age (also lots of people with family living with them or nearby), and their kids don't do this. The old guard on the Hill was more likely to be dual feds or even one fed, one SAHP, Gen X hippies/hipsters where having more free range kids in the city made sense to them. Newer folks are more risk averse.

It's a cultural shift that I think the PP, whose kids are clearly now older, may not realize it's happened because they don't socialize with the people who now have kids in elementary. This Hill is less free range now.

I'm one of the older parents. If what you're saying is true, that makes me really sad. What is the point of living in CH if your kids can't walk to school/the park/to their friends' house?