I recently received a great question from a reader, “what’s the added cost of no man’s land.” What she means is do the benefits of living somewhere a little more isolated, for less, outweigh the cost of living closer to town where rents are higher. This is one of the fundamental predicaments of urban living. This is also one of many reasons I focus in Northwest DC. I find that the area is both livable and accessible. However, there are the exceptions of Georgetown and Glover Park. These are a bit trickier.
$1346 a month gets you 850 square feet in Glover Park!
Is it worth living somewhere like Glover Park where rent is cheap but the level of accessibility is lower? You might be surprised to hear me say that it all evens out. The whole point of living in DC is so you can explore it. I guarantee that your friends will want to come to your neighborhood as much as you want to come to theirs. It is better to think of it this way: rent is a fixed cost. You can scale back the amount that you go out or eat out, but your rent is your rent. The rule of thumb is that your rent should account for around 30% of your take-home pay. For many young professionals in the city, that is not realistic. I would say many are paying around the 40% mark. However, this is a good range to think about when considering where to live. Really the question goes beyond money and is about time. You can get around the city on the cheap, you just have to be ok with longer commutes and long waits.
The short answer is pick a place that makes you comfortable both financially and personally. Trust me, you will be much happier scraping money together for the bars than for your rent.
