Texas vs. Washington DC (Houston, West: fit in, employment, living)

[War Beagle]

Nairobi, you still never said why you care so much about people posting negative things about DC. I don't get what dog you have in this fight.

[jek74]

Originally Posted by Nairobi

All relative, my friend. For all I know, you could be avoiding any neighborhood that had a significant number of blacks. Just because you can't hold your own doesn't mean no one else can.



Most people who live in the NYC area live in Jersey, Long Island, or one of the more suburban areas of New York and Connecticut. Most people who live in "Chicago" live in one of the surrounding suburbs. Most people who live in the San Francisco area also live in the suburbs.

So you were saying?

So now you are bringing race into this? And how exactly do you know what race I am? Look, you asked for crime stats, I gave them to you. Let me try to explain this to you. Cities like Chicago, San Fran, NY etc have a grid type system. It makes walking easy because of the geometry. DC is NOT like that. DC has long walkable streets in some hoods but it's not grid based. So it's not conducive to covering a lot of "area". Does this make sense? So in that respect, DC IS "different" from other walkable metro areas. Honestly, why are you defending DC so much?

[Nairobi]

Originally Posted by War Beagle

Nairobi, you still never said why you care so much about people posting negative things about DC. I don't get what dog you have in this fight.

It's simple. When someone starts a thread concerning relocation to one of several cities, they deserve the most objective information possible. What good does it do someone to simply try and scare them out of choosing one city over the other?

I'm not from DC. I'm a proud native Houstonian, so that ought to tell you how annoyed I am by this.

[War Beagle]

Originally Posted by Nairobi

It's simple. When someone starts a thread concerning relocation to one of several cities, they deserve the most objective information possible. What good does it do someone to simply try and scare them out of choosing one city over the other?

I'm not from DC. I'm a proud native Houstonian, so that ought to tell you how annoyed I am by this.

"Objective" can include negative information. It's not helpful to only tell people the positives when they are trying to make a decision Some people provided positive info about DC, others provided negative info. Houston isn't perfect, but in my opinion, it is better than DC. Other people feel differently and they posted their views. That's how this whole message board thing works.

[jek74]

Originally Posted by Nairobi

It's simple. When someone starts a thread concerning relocation to one of several cities, they deserve the most objective information possible. What good does it do someone to simply try and scare them out of choosing one city over the other.

I'm not from DC. I'm a proud native Houstonian, so that ought to tell you how annoyed I am by this.

Who here didn't give objective information? All of us gave positives and negatives about DC. I'm making the assumption that if you are not filthy rich, the poor and middle class parts of the district itself honestly are not at all attractive. The surrounding burbs are beautiful. Even the burbs are expensive, but they are cheaper then Georgetown or Dupont Circle. Yes, I used the word crap. And I still use that word. Have you been to DC? Serious question. See, here's the problem. When people "visit" an area whether it NY or San Fran or FL they have a tourists perspective. They usually stay in nice safe hotels and see all the nice things visitors see. But when you actually "live" in an area, you don't actually live in those nice places. DC is a fun place to visit. But if this person decides to live there, and they are not loaded, then they have limited options. Look, I use to live in NY for 2 years. I worked on Wall Street. And you know where I lived? I wasn't living with the cast of "Friends" in a huge loft in the village, I lived in Brooklyn and Hoboken. Why? Because that is what I could afford. The bottom line is, to live in DC is insanely expensive which is why most people live in the burbs. If money is not an object, then sure, have at it, live anywhere you want. I assume for the most part just based on statistics, that most of the population is not rich by definition. After all, to be in the top 1% means that other 99% are not. So if this person is in the middle class and does want to live inside the "walkable district", they will not be living in a nice area and yes, they will be dealing with violent crime.

[War Beagle]

Originally Posted by jek74

Who here didn't give objective information? All of us gave positives and negatives about DC. I'm making the assumption that if you are not filthy rich, the poor and middle class parts of the district itself honestly are not at all attractive. The surrounding burbs are beautiful. Even the burbs are expensive, but they are cheaper then Georgetown or Dupont Circle. Yes, I used the word crap. And I still use that word. Have you been to DC? Serious question. See, here's the problem. When people "visit" an area whether it NY or San Fran or FL they have a tourists perspective. They usually stay in nice safe hotels and see all the nice things visitors see. But when you actually "live" in an area, you don't actually live in those nice places. DC is a fun place to visit. But if this person decides to live there, and they are not loaded, then they have limited options. Look, I use to live in NY for 2 years. I worked on Wall Street. And you know where I lived? I wasn't living with the cast of "Friends" in a huge loft in the village, I lived in Brooklyn and Hoboken. Why? Because that is what I could afford. The bottom line is, to live in DC is insanely expensive which is why most people live in the burbs. If money is not an object, then sure, have at it, live anywhere you want. I assume for the most part just based on statistics, that most of the population is not rich by definition. After all, to be in the top 1% means that other 99% are not. So if this person is in the middle class and does want to live inside the "walkable district", they will not be living in a nice area and yes, they will be dealing with violent crime.

Well said.

[Nairobi]

You're not being objective when you describe a city as "crap", because then it becomes personal opinion.

But I have no interest in going back and forth about the same thing over and over, so, like I was telling MsMorgan, her best bet is to post in the DC forum so she can hear the other side of things.

[jek74]

Originally Posted by Nairobi

You're not being objective when you describe a city as "crap", because then it becomes personal opinion.

But I have no interest in going back and forth about the same thing over and over, so, like I was telling MsMorgan, her best bet is to post in the DC forum so she can hear the other side of things.

This makes absolutely no sense. This is like me saying I think the Texans are a great football team but their kicker sucks. That does not mean the whole team sucks and it does not mean I'm not being objective. I described a "specific" part of DC and was being honest. I praised other parts of the area. Am I not entitled to my opinion?

[Nairobi]

Originally Posted by jek74

So now you are bringing race into this? And how exactly do you know what race I am? Look, you asked for crime stats, I gave them to you. Let me try to explain this to you. Cities like Chicago, San Fran, NY etc have a grid type system. It makes walking easy because of the geometry. DC is NOT like that. DC has long walkable streets in some hoods but it's not grid based. So it's not conducive to covering a lot of "area". Does this make sense? So in that respect, DC IS "different" from other walkable metro areas. Honestly, why are you defending DC so much?

Sir, your argument was that DC was a big suburb because most people in the area lived in the suburbs. That is true for each of those other metros. Are they also huge suburbs?

I guess Boston isn't walkable either, since it doesn't have a solid grid.

I wasn't suggesting you're racist. I was just using that as an example. In other words, I have no idea what your exact motives are for considering any given neighborhood "ghetto". Furthermore, what might be an undesirable neighborhood might suit someone else just fine.

Originally Posted by jek74

This makes absolutely no sense. This is like me saying I think the Texans are a great football team but their kicker sucks. That does not mean the whole team sucks and it does not mean I'm not being objective. I described a "specific" part of DC and was being honest. I praised other parts of the area. Am I not entitled to my opinion?

It makes perfect sense. Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but it isn't objective.

Take notice of the fact that in my first post I stated nothing but the facts (mildly opinionated, but could atleast be supported). I refrained from using my own biased perception of each city in order to influence the OP.

[jek74]

Originally Posted by Nairobi

Sir, your argument was that DC was a big suburb because most people in the area lived in the suburbs. That is true for each of those other metros. Are they also huge suburbs?

I guess Boston isn't walkable either, since it doesn't have a solid grid.

I wasn't suggesting you're racist. I was just using that as an example. In other words, I have no idea what your exact motives are for considering any given neighborhood "ghetto". Furthermore, what might be an undesirable neighborhood might suit someone else just fine.



It makes perfect sense. Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but it isn't objective.

Take notice of the fact that in my first post I stated nothing but the facts. I refrained from using my own biased perception of each city in order to influence the OP.

No, there are affordable areas in "some" metro areas. DC has a weird dynamic because of the government jobs. It's not like other cities in that respect. Boston is far more walkable then DC. Again, the layout of DC is different. It's just not that conducive to lots of walking. As for an area being ghetto, I would describe any area that is BOTH (read this carefully) high crime and poor to be ghetto. Has nothing to do with skin color. There are poor areas that are not ghetto and there are areas of crime that are not necessarily poor. But any hood that is both poor and high crime, I would describe as ghetto. And there are MANY of these areas inside the district in DC. There are also very nice areas inside the district as I have stated many times now. The problem is they are insanely expensive and I don't think it's fair to tell this poster, oh sure, you can live there, it's really nice. When in reality, if she is not making more then 250k a year, she probably has no way to afford that. I'm being both a realist and practical. I continue to stand by everything I said.