OLD "Long Distance" now means outside the city proper?

[Mrlonelyone]

I have noticed many postings on OLD which specify that one must live in the city proper. i.e. imagine an OLD profile that specified that dating someone who does not live on Manhattan is "long distance" or someone who lives in the San Fernando Valley is "long distance". Those are places where a short bus ride or subway ride connect people.

 

That is a situation I have been in. A couple of people felt compelled to write me to say that my living in a suburb so near Chicago that we have a CTA bus line that connects to the EL in at most 15 minutes ride....is "long distance".

 

This was also an issue in my last R....and even some friendships. They lived in the city and did not have a car. In Chicago that is possible on a certain side of town..it's very Manhattan like. Yet the notion of taking the EL (you know Chicago's subway / tube) out to the suburbs, that are still in the same county (subdivision of a state in the USA) is too far?

 

I know a person can refuse for whatever reason.

 

My question is how common is this attitude? Does anyone else here feel that "long distance" is more about commute time than actual distance or commute hassle ?

[TXGuy]

I think it is pretty common, especially in bigger cities where there are plenty of options that are more convenient. I generally have a 15 minute limit on the commute I'm willing to make to meet a woman. Being in a major city, that does not seem to limit my options.

 

While I don't use public transportation, I'd be reluctant to do the transfers you mentioned. A metro trip to a bus stop that will get someone in the general area of where you want to be. That sounds like a hassle. Each transfer would mean an additional waiting time. You also have to worry about the bus/train ending for the night before you want to end the night.

Edited January 22, 2014 by TXGuy

[Better]

I don't date outside of the city proper. It's not about distance. It is about lifestyle. I like the vibrancy of the inner city and want to meet someone who enjoys living in that environment as well. I'm more compatible with people who have already made that decision. Wide open spaces, lawns, and suburbia are not at all interesting to me. I'd much prefer to be able to walk to great restaurants, bars, and interesting cultural activities and share that lifestyle with my partner.

 

Every single time I have gone outside of that "rule", I've been disappointed. I don't want to be "converted" to a lifestyle that doesn't match my personality.

[clia]

For me, it's all about commute time and hassle since the two are usually intertwined. I also live in Chicago and when I was doing OLD I stuck to guys who lived in the city, preferably in my neighborhood or the ones directly surrounding me. Chicago traffic is brutal, the CTA is unreliable at times, and having to switch trains and buses or take the Metra to get out to the 'burbs is a pain to me. I rarely leave the city except to go to the airport. There is no reason to go out to the 'burbs. Plus, I don't want to live there, so why would I start a relationship with someone who lives there that could lead to them wanting me to move out there?

 

It's a matter of convenience. I wanted to date someone who I could meet up with for dinner without having an hour or more commute each way, or have to worry about a snowstorm hitting so they can't get home, or a huge car accident on the freeway, or the Metra having problems. I've spent enough time sitting in traffic trying to get home from O'Hare. I also like the idea of being able to get together more spontaneously without it being a big commuting ordeal.

[d0nnivain]

Have you ever seen a New Yorker's view of the world?

https://www.google.com/search?q=a+new+yorker's+view+of+the+world&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=QyDgUomMIqvisATcpoEI&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1093&bih=521#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=S9eir0jpeCrYuM%253A%3BNQtrdNBXQ5vMsM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fdesignblog.rietveldacademie.nl%252Fwp-content%252Fuploads%252F2010%252F10%252Fsteinberg_352.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fdesignblog.rietveldacademie.nl%252F%253Ftag%253Dzeitgeist%3B352%3B480

 

 

City dwellers have little patience for something that isn't instant. Travel time makes them crazy. If they can't get something on their block, they are rarely interested.

[RedRobin]

If commuting to see them takes longer than 30 minutes, that qualifies as a LDR to me. It means that both of us are not inclined to do spontaneous things with each other... definitely not during the week.

 

 

Guys who live less than 15 min away definitely get priority.

[ASG]

I live in London.

London has 6 fare zones. Zones 1 to 3 are still London, zones 4 to 6 are definitely suburbs. But to be honest, in most cases, I find that zone 3 is fairly suburb-y as well.

 

I wouldn't date someone who lived in zones 4 to 6. And then there's the *where* they live to consider. I live on the border of South East and South West, zone 2. So fairly central south. Someone who lived in North West, even if in zone 2 or 3 is gonna be over an hour away from me on public transport.

 

In London you can get to Central (zone 1) from just about anywhere. But going South to North, South to East, North to West is a PAIN. Because you need to go into Central, to then go out. Which tends to mean it will take at least an hour of travelling. I would consider that long distance and would not be willing to do it.

[BikerAccnt]

Proximity makes a difference. I live in the suburbs, but dont' really want to date anyone much more than 30 minutes from me, at the farthest. Like others have said, it makes doing anything spontaneous, or even on a weeknight, impractical.

 

I drive 30 minutes each way to work, in good traffic. That's an hour a day, now tag on another 30 minutes each way to date and...on weeknights it's just not going to work well.

 

So yeah, closer is better.