General Question

robertwade's avatar

I'm about to buy a new home, should I buy in the city or the suburbs?

Asked by robertwade (1points) January 16th, 2008 from iPhone

I have two teeneagers.
I need three bedrooms.
I lived in Europe for 10 years.
I’m a musician.
that should help you answer.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

11 Answers

segdeha's avatar

Depends on the city.

vanguardian's avatar

well its hard to say without knowing what city and state you’re looking. Or even what country.

cwilbur's avatar

Can you afford to buy a place with as much space as you need in the city? How much less would you pay if you lived in the city, and is the inconvenience of living in the country worth saving that much?

Maverick's avatar

Well, living in the city is more enviromentally sustainable.Suburbs are pretty much ecological disaster zones because they force people to drive everywhere, they consume more power and resources while supporting a much lower density, cause sprawl over a much larger area, etc. So, I would always vote city, but I’m sure that’s not what you were asking.

seek2be's avatar

wait two years and buy when the market is completely crashed.

segdeha's avatar

@Maverick, I agree that less dense residential areas are sort of bad by default. But, on the chance you work from home, some of that effect is mitigated and it’s often easier to afford a slightly larger place near slightly better schools in the ‘burbs than in the city.

Eight's avatar

There’s cities and then there’s cities. Same for suburbs. In your situation, I’d look at the schools first. Transportation time/costs as well as educational quality. Even private schools if you can afford it. This being America, you might find significant different demographic mixes in the city v/s suburb, which may be an advantage or disadvantage depending on your values. Again, I’d do what’s best for the kids.

gooch's avatar

city dwellings appreciate faster and sell faster if you decide to move

Maverick's avatar

@segdeha, actually there aren’t any situations where suburban living is more ecological that city living – even when someone works from home. Just because someone works from home doesn’t mean they never leave the house, they would still need to drive to get groceries, shopping, and eating out. In a city, all those tasks could be done by walking or transit. Not to mention if you think about all the energy it takes to run services to a single-family dwelling home whereas in a city it takes far less effort to run those same services (distances being much lower) while at the same time they support many more people.

Affordability and the supposed quality of schools is highly subjective and is not a consideration in environmental impact of housing, which is what I was referencing.

sferik's avatar

Might I interject a third option: the country. I grew up in a beautiful town in upstate New York with only 5,000 residents. My house was on 16 acres of land, which was not uncommon for the town. I spent much of childhood in the woods, climbing trees and building tree forts. It was a very safe community and I lived walking-distance to the center of town. Now I’m an urban technophile living in San Francisco, I feel very lucky to have grown up surrounded by nature.

segdeha's avatar

@Maverick, You might notice that I said telecommuting may mitigate one’s resource usage. Of course, it’s not more eco-groovy than urban living. It’s just not as bad as driving an hour each way to work every day.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther