Suburbia or City

[AsianDragons]

would you prefer a to live in a suburb 60km from the city with 95% of the houses 2 or 3 stories and 5/6 bedrooms for a price of about $700 000

or

would you prefer to live in an apartment in the city that is also new but only has 2 or 3 bedrooms for a price of $700 000

[VelesHomais]

The premise of your question is too vague because it omits crucially vital variables. The point of living in the suburbs is that you get a mansion for $700k in an excellent neighborhood, while in the city $700k will get you a studio, if that, in an excellent neighborhood.

If you want those 2-3 bedrooms in the city, then it's not going to be some amazing apartment in a new skyscraper, it'll be a substantially less prestigious area. At least that's the case in NYC.

So the choice, if we limit ourselves to excellent neighborhoods, is really between a studio and a mansion, then it just depends whether you are alone or not. Otherwise I'd rather get the mansion in the suburbs rather than a mediocre apartment with 2-3 bedrooms, if I'm planning to start a family.

I used to be exceedingly opposed to suburban lifestyle, but after working in the suburbs for a few months, I realized that it actually has a lot of benefits to it as well. Everything is cleaner, safer, newer, the people are better. But as someone who had always lived in a large city, I'd choose a studio in a new skyscraper at this point in my life, if it's in a walking distance to my office.

If in your city you can get a brand new 3 bedroom apartment in a skyscraper, in an excellent neighborhood, then it's really a no brainer ...

[musiccity]

As a young, single bachelor.. very much a city!


But when I settle down and have a family I would like to move in to a suburb

[AsianDragons]

Originally Posted by VelesHomais

The premise of your question is too vague because it omits crucially vital variables. The point of living in the suburbs is that you get a mansion for $700k in an excellent neighborhood, while in the city $700k will get you a studio, if that, in an excellent neighborhood.

If you want those 2-3 bedrooms in the city, then it's not going to be some amazing apartment in a new skyscraper, it'll be a substantially less prestigious area. At least that's the case in NYC.

So the choice, if we limit ourselves to excellent neighborhoods, is really between a studio and a mansion, then it just depends whether you are alone or not. Otherwise I'd rather get the mansion in the suburbs rather than a mediocre apartment with 2-3 bedrooms, if I'm planning to start a family.

I used to be exceedingly opposed to suburban lifestyle, but after working in the suburbs for a few months, I realized that it actually has a lot of benefits to it as well. Everything is cleaner, safer, newer, the people are better. But as someone who had always lived in a large city, I'd choose a studio in a new skyscraper at this point in my life, if it's in a walking distance to my office.

If in your city you can get a brand new 3 bedroom apartment in a skyscraper, in an excellent neighborhood, then it's really a no brainer ...

i forgot to add that the expectation is that youll have 4 people in the same 2 homes, 3 bed in an apartment or would you rather say a 4 bedroom plus a study room

[Jan]

Originally Posted by musiccity

But when I settle down and have a family I would like to move in to a suburb

I still would prefer to live in the heart of the city with a family, and I know the kids would love it too. Suburbs may have more kids around, but the city is just so much more fun.

[ikops]

Well, that's a hard choise, but eventually I think would choose to live in a neighboorhood as close to the city as possible.

[Jan]

There have been numerous studies done on downtown family living and the conclusion is always that if you'll organize the amenities families are looking after, they will come. Being malleable, kids will be coping with the surroundings just fine. A good school is #1 on the list, but also playground and other families with kids nearby are important. A skyscraper related drawback is that families need rather large homes, which can be rather expensive in a skyscraper.

[AsianDragons]

no choice in hong kong, there are about how many houses there? 100?

[MasonicStage™]

Suburbs

[Suburbanist]

Originally Posted by AsianDragons

no choice in hong kong, there are about how many houses there? 100?

I don't think hyperdense, tiny-flat-full cities like Hong Kong are healthy for kids.

Residential skyscrapers, to be nice living environments, need a lot of space around them. For instance, the tall building clusters in Surfer's Paradise or Miami Beach look healthy, airy and inviting places to live. Those in Manhattan, not so.

And it is not about being on the coast, just the way they are organized, not in continuous "walls" of tall buildings but with plenty of space around them in all directions.

========================

A major issue, in any case, is the price of housing. Families need more space, ideally IMHO. Something like 1 bedroom per child, at least 2 complete bathrooms, some space for indoor playing that is not the study/office corner etc. Some buildings have playing/entertainment facilities at ground level, exclusive for use by residents, which is of some help, especially for kids to play unsupervised.

However, in a boxed building with other uses on ground floor, you need eve more space indoors for kids to spend all their energy. And these buildings usually command a high price per sq. meter. It is much more profitable to develop 1-bedroom, studios or other smaller units catering for childless households because they not only are smaller (1 or 2 persons), but also much more likely to stay out of their homes often, which diminishes a bit the impact of space on quality of life.

A developer usually has less economic incentives to build tall buildings with larger units catering for families.

=============

With that money, I'd prefer to buy a house in a small city (or even a small rural property) that is still close enough to a larger center (within 75-90 min one-way travel time)

[Jan]

Originally Posted by Suburbanist

Residential skyscrapers, to be nice living environments, need a lot of space around them. For instance, the tall building clusters in Surfer's Paradise or Miami Beach look healthy, airy and inviting places to live. Those in Manhattan, not so.

That depends on how you define space and healthy. My definition of space is having many amenities and options nearby (space of choice) and my definition of healthy is being able to walk or bike anywhere. Also, Manhattan looks far from an unhealthy environment to live in. In the 19th century maybe, but not in this day and age.

[bolg]

City, definitely. I've lived almost all of my life in cities and have grown to accustomed to having everything a short distance away. And I enjoy the sounds of street life outside my windows.

[Disturbing Reality]

I live within the city limits around 10 minutes drive from downtown.. major stores, shopping centers are 5-15 minutes away, i can walk to the church, park, pharmacy and a good number of fastfoods/restaurants so I guess this is where I wanna be..

[joshsam]

I'd like to live in a suburb, but not the USA styled suburb. Twice a dense at least and preferable a twon setup like the old pre war suburbs in the USA.

[SydneyCity]

I like something in between, somewhere near the city so i'm close to the action, but not right in it. I grew up in the 'burbs, never again

[Innsertnamehere]

I'd say city before kids (1 bedroom 600square foot condo for $400k) and inner suburbs (20-30 minute transit ride in, owning a single car) for a 1,000-1,500 square foot 3 bedroom home for $450-550k

At least that's what I'd do in Toronto. What I would do vastly varies depending on the city. For a small city of something like 100,000 people for example, I would buy a "downtown" home (in the 20 or so blocks that could be considered downtown in a city that size) and keep it.

[Jonesy55]

Neither, as I don't have $700k to spend on a home in either city or suburb and neither do the vast majority if people even in the richest countries.

Isn't the median price of a home in the US something like $200k?

[ikops]

Only rich people on this forum, Jonesy.

[AsianDragons]

Originally Posted by Jonesy55

Neither, as I don't have $700k to spend on a home in either city or suburb and neither do the vast majority if people even in the richest countries.

Isn't the median price of a home in the US something like $200k?

200k are you sure?

i checked for sydney its about $600000 + for the average home, also the australian dollar is higher than us, so $700000 is a normal figure for sydneysiders, but if you compare brisbane the 3rd largest in australia the average is less than $400000

[Jonesy55]

Well it's true Australia does have some of the world's most expensive real estate, and Sydney is the most expensive city there. I think A$600k is around 8x median household income in Sydney so still fairly unaffordable despite high incomes.

According to this the US median home price is currently $186k.

http://www.realtor.org/news-releases...arter-sales-up