Live in the mile around your house

[Bracken_Joy]

Where we used to live was much like that- even 1/2mi, not 1 mile. The rent was very high though. But it was a pretty calm way to live- I love being able to walk errands and not have to drive.

On the other hand, now we drive 2.5mi to groceries, I drive 80min each way to work (luckily only 2 days per week), and we are near zero amenities except for 1 small park about a mile away. On the other hand, the rent is cheap(er)!

[SeattleStache]

Pretty much everything I do is within a mile from my place and I love it. Work is the furthest away at 1.1 miles but the grocery store, parks, bars, restaurants, museums, central library, Pike Place Market, even the ferry terminal out to the islands is within a mile. It really does give me so much extra time to enjoy the day without having to worry about driving, parking, sitting in traffic, etc. I do feel lucky and know it isn't always possible.

[aschmidt2930]

I rarely leave a two mile radius around my place, it helps that I work remotely though.

[mathlete]

A mile is an arbitrary unit of measurement.
 
No one would even consider it if a blogger said, "Live in the 5,280 feet around your house." because the number 5,280 effectively communicates just how arbitrary the distance is.

Like all life advice, the broad strokes tend to be more important than the details.

You could broaden it out and then put some kind of probability on it. Something like, "I will live within 10 miles of my home 80% of the time."

If I analyzed my life, I'd probably unconsciously adhere to such a rule. I'm not a big fan of rules though. There are compelling reasons to break almost any rule you could come up with. That's why I don't do budgets.

I recognize that, "Do I live within a mile of my home?" is a fun thought experiment if nothing else though. Far be it from me to stop the fun.

[mm1970]

When I was in my 20s in my last 2 years before leaving the Navy, I lived in the DC area.

My studio was 1 mile from work.  I walked to work.  I could buy groceries on the way (but drove to the commissary instead).

It was glorious!  Most of that mile was in the underground between Pentagon city and crystal City, so rain/ snow/ humidity.  Didn't matter.

[jim555]

I am suburban area with a Walmart and supermarket about 1/4 mile away.  A major mall 2 miles north, another huge mall 5 miles west, library, parks, many drugstores, Target, within 2 miles.
I walk a lot instead of using the car, which is nice.  I have lived in an area where I had to travel at least 5 miles for anything, which sucked.

[Bracken_Joy]

I'm amazed by everyone saying within 5 miles isn't bad... Most of our stuff is within 3 miles, and that still feels WAY too far for me!

[tobitonic]

A mile is an arbitrary unit of measurement.
 
No one would even consider it if a blogger said, "Live in the 5,280 feet around your house." because the number 5,280 effectively communicates just how arbitrary the distance is.

Like all life advice, the broad strokes tend to be more important than the details.

Agreed.

[Happy in CA]

This is why we moved post-FIRE.  In my old suburban neighborhood everyone drove everywhere, even if a few things were technically within biking distance.  The closest downtown type area was about 5 miles away.

Now we are within 1 mile of downtown and its 4 movie theaters, many restaurants, medical and dental clinics, library, banks and drug stores.  Supermarkets are a little farther - three within 1.5 to 2 miles.  I do walk and sometimes bike to them, but I drive to them sometimes as well. 

Best of all we are just a few blocks from a recreational oceanside trail.  I go out there every day, and I often walk 4 or 5 miles.  It's free, and it always makes me happy.

[seattlecyclone]

A mile is an arbitrary unit of measurement.
 
No one would even consider it if a blogger said, "Live in the 5,280 feet around your house." because the number 5,280 effectively communicates just how arbitrary the distance is.

Like all life advice, the broad strokes tend to be more important than the details.

Agreed.

Yeah, the broad strokes are important. If you need to go 1.2 miles for some things sometimes, you're totally abiding by the spirit of the advice if not the letter. I feel a mile is a convenient measurement to use here because it's roughly the distance a typical person can walk in 20 minutes at a steady but not overly fast pace. Anything past this does seem a bit far to walk to most people.

I would personally say you should pick whatever radius you want where you would personally default to non-motorized transport most of the time. That's where the monetary savings comes in, and the exercise you get by walking or biking is an added bonus on top of this.

[calimom]

You haven't seen the mile around my house.

Yeah, to make this happen, you'd have to choose the mile pretty carefully.  I don't live in that spot.

Yep. If I was interested in homeschooling my kids or not working, sure. And I wanted to have expensive deliveries of food and not hit the farmers' market or any stores, sure. And I was happy with zero cultural opportunities and never wanted to take my kids to the lake or hiking in the mountains, sure. So guess I'm stuck leaving my imaginary safety zone and venturing out in the world a little bit longer.

[dreams_and_discoveries]

You haven't seen the mile around my house.

Yeah, to make this happen, you'd have to choose the mile pretty carefully.  I don't live in that spot.

I'm with you guys - my house is in a lovely quiet residential location to live, but not where I want to spend all my time.

And I can walk 1 mile in 15 mins, so I'd go pretty stir crazy if I regularly stayed that close to home. I thrive on variety and changes, and love seeing the wider world and enjoying the delights of London.

[Nickyd£g]

I've always ascribed to the this:  if I can't bike to work it's too far. 

Been doing this for 30 years.  Walk to grocery stores, do the garden, good ale house a few blocks away, etc.   OK - take the car to the mountains for climbing/backcountry skiing, but generally the car stays parked during the week.   Commuting distances, spending hours of your day going back and forth in a line never made sense to me.

Yes, I don't think it's all that uncommon in Europe. I lived in San Rafael for a while, and found the lack of amenities without having to drive everywhere bewildering.  In fact, on a few occasions I walk the couple of miles to the mall I had people stop their car and ask if I needed a lift or was lost! While that was very kind of them, I found it weird that they thought it was weird that I was walking!  Everything is just so spread out. 

[Chris22]

I would personally say you should pick whatever radius you want where you would personally default to non-motorized transport most of the time. That's where the monetary savings comes in

I really don't think that's necessarily true.  If you get rid of your car, sure, you'll save some money, but I've already shown that INCREMENTAL miles are not very expensive assuming you still need to own one.  And the other side of the equation is that housing that is readily walkable tends to be (but is not always) significantly more expensive.  Like I said, a house a mile closer to downtown than my own would cost at least 30% more, because the area is more desirable. 

I agree that from a quality of life standpoint, and maybe an environmental standpoint*, living in a walkable area is better, but from an economic sense, it's entirely at a case by case basis because it's very easy to give back way more than your incremental per-mile costs in real estate costs. 


*Personally, the effect on the environment of driving a couple miles in a modern car is basically nil, but whatever makes you feel better

[big_owl]

Not possible unless I reduced myself to eating beech nuts, acorns and wild deer.  Nearest town center is 7mi in every direction for us.

I'm not really sure what this even achieves - about all you're doing is driving less.  It might as well be called "don't drive more than a mile in any direction from home".  It's great to drive less, but unless everything you're buying/using/eating is completely sourced locally, it's still all being produced and shipped in from many miles away.  So you're not actually "living" in the mile around your house.

[Inaya]

I agree that from a quality of life standpoint, and maybe an environmental standpoint*, living in a walkable area is better, but from an economic sense, it's entirely at a case by case basis because it's very easy to give back way more than your incremental per-mile costs in real estate costs. 

I'm not finding this to be the case necessarily. I live in a studio in downtown Chicago with my husband. I've looked at homes in the suburbs, and no matter how I spin the numbers, my expenses will go up quite a bit if we move. For starters, in the suburbs near my office, 1 BR single family home (SFHs) simply don't exist, and 2 BR are pretty rare. Basements are ubiquitous. Of course, as the square footage increases, so does the price. Sure the price per square foot drops, but there is nothing of comparable price per month because "build big" is the norm out there. So already I've traded my walkability of 95 to a walkability of 17 and get to pay at least $600 more monthly rent/mortgage for the privilege.

But wait, there's more! Things that I don't pay for now that I'd have to pay for to be closer to my office: property tax, water, gas, electric, trash, sewage, and... other stuff (rented all my life, so I have no idea)? So that's like what? I don't even know how much that stuff costs in this area since I haven't had to pay for it since moving here.

Also, add in the expense and labor of landscaping, house maintenance, plumbing emergencies, flooded basements, snow shoveling, rodents, and bugs!

Oh and that walkability of 17 means we need a car (sorry, folks, I'll walk all day, but I'm not a biker--plus, they didn't even HAVE a bike score for this area), insurance, gas, tires, oil, maintenance.

Now if you have kids or you need a ton of space for whatever reason, go for it! But I don't think it's realistic to say it's less economical to live near city center, especially if you DON'T want 3 bedrooms, a basement, a 3 car garage, a workshop, and a backyard the size of an Olympic pool.

You did say case by case, which I would agree with to an extent. Other suburbs and places in the city limits but not near downtown probably do have 1 BR SFHs of a price comparable to mine--but aren't relevant to me because that's not where I work. But rent/mortgage being equal, homeownership would still be WAY more expensive because of all those other expenses. I really can't see how it would be economical to move even if my rent in my current place increased by $500+ per month.

That said, I DESPERATELY want dogs--you know how some childless 30-ish women go baby crazy? That's me right now, but with dogs. Some day in the next few years I might trade my nice cheap walkable lifestyle for all the joys of homeownership just so I can have those dogs. It's all about priorities.

[Chris22]

I agree that from a quality of life standpoint, and maybe an environmental standpoint*, living in a walkable area is better, but from an economic sense, it's entirely at a case by case basis because it's very easy to give back way more than your incremental per-mile costs in real estate costs. 

I'm not finding this to be the case necessarily. I live in a studio in downtown Chicago with my husband. I've looked at homes in the suburbs, and no matter how I spin the numbers, my expenses will go up quite a bit if we move.

I'm talking apples to apples (house to house, or even apt. in walkable area vs. apt in less walkable area).  Going from urban to suburban isn't the same thing, especially given the house vs. apt discussion.

[TheContinentalOp]

I walk/bike this all

.5 miles to the gym, grocery store and redbox
1.0 miles to the barber, dentist, post office and fruit/vegetable market
1.25 miles to the library
2.5 miles to work, doctor

8.5 miles to chess club. I bike during DST and drive during standard time.

[Inaya]

I'm talking apples to apples (house to house, or even apt. in walkable area vs. apt in less walkable area).  Going from urban to suburban isn't the same thing, especially given the house vs. apt discussion.

I apologize if this comes off snarky, as that is not my intent, but why specify, especially after the fact? Your thesis was that walkability (in general) means a price increase--my argument was that this isn't necessarily going to be the case even most of the time.

For the sake of apples-to-apples, however:
Average price for a 550 square feet in my building: $1400.
Apartment complex that's almost but not quite walking distance from my office: $1445 for 527 square feet, plus they require renters insurance.

[rubybeth]

Kinda. I live within a mile of work (which happens to be the public library, so that's nice) and a lovely park which we regularly walk in. There's also a grocery store within about a mile, as well. But we do use the cars for shopping at Aldi and Target (maybe 3 miles away?), and for visiting friends/family, and our gym (the YMCA) is also probably about 3 miles away. But we don't have over-scheduled weekends, for the most part, we use that time to re-charge at home as much as possible, and not spend additional time in cars, if we can avoid it. We do drive to the Minneapolis/St. Paul area about once/month on average for concerts or other cultural events, or to see family/friends who live there.

[mtn]

I'm talking apples to apples (house to house, or even apt. in walkable area vs. apt in less walkable area).  Going from urban to suburban isn't the same thing, especially given the house vs. apt discussion.

I apologize if this comes off snarky, as that is not my intent, but why specify, especially after the fact? Your thesis was that walkability (in general) means a price increase--my argument was that this isn't necessarily going to be the case even most of the time.

For the sake of apples-to-apples, however:
Average price for a 550 square feet in my building: $1400.
Apartment complex that's almost but not quite walking distance from my office: $1445 for 527 square feet, plus they require renters insurance.

What suburb do you work in? And where in Chicago? Both those rents seem fair for the area, but higher than they need to be to me.

FWIW, it would be far cheaper for my wife and I to live in the suburbs, but we would at the same time be losing the walkability. In the suburbs, the closer you get to the Metra (which happens to mostly be downtown in any particular suburb, although not necessarily closer to a grocery) the more expensive your housing.

[Inaya]

I'm talking apples to apples (house to house, or even apt. in walkable area vs. apt in less walkable area).  Going from urban to suburban isn't the same thing, especially given the house vs. apt discussion.

I apologize if this comes off snarky, as that is not my intent, but why specify, especially after the fact? Your thesis was that walkability (in general) means a price increase--my argument was that this isn't necessarily going to be the case even most of the time.

For the sake of apples-to-apples, however:
Average price for a 550 square feet in my building: $1400.
Apartment complex that's almost but not quite walking distance from my office: $1445 for 527 square feet, plus they require renters insurance.

What suburb do you work in? And where in Chicago? Both those rents seem fair for the area, but higher than they need to be to me.

FWIW, it would be far cheaper for my wife and I to live in the suburbs, but we would at the same time be losing the walkability. In the suburbs, the closer you get to the Metra (which happens to mostly be downtown in any particular suburb, although not necessarily closer to a grocery) the more expensive your housing.

For all intents and purposes, Deerfield--not too far from the MD-N line, (but not walking distance either). I just Googled "deerfield apartment" and took the first result--admittedly not the best sample size. I'm looking a bit more deeply and it looks like that's pretty average with a couple outliers in either direction.
Live in River North, but the rent in that building is a bit below average for the area, to be honest.

I personally would never move into an apartment in the suburbs. If we're sacrificing walkability, we might as well get a house and yard out of the deal. We've considered moving out of the city, but it always seems like we'd be giving so much city amazingness and paying soooo much more. But then again, dogs.

[Chris22]

I'm talking apples to apples (house to house, or even apt. in walkable area vs. apt in less walkable area).  Going from urban to suburban isn't the same thing, especially given the house vs. apt discussion.

I apologize if this comes off snarky, as that is not my intent, but why specify, especially after the fact? Your thesis was that walkability (in general) means a price increase--my argument was that this isn't necessarily going to be the case even most of the time.

Because I didn't think of that kind of drastic lifestyle change.  As you pointed out, there are a HUGE number of considerations, both economic and otherwise, that come into play when considering a move to/from the city/suburbs. 

I was just trying to point out that fixating on one very narrow attribute, walking to certain things to minimize car costs, may miss the forest for the trees if you spend a lot more on housing, etc, in a given area.

[Chris22]

In the suburbs, the closer you get to the Metra (which happens to mostly be downtown in any particular suburb, although not necessarily closer to a grocery) the more expensive your housing.

This is what I was thinking of.  I'm in Arlington Heights, this is definitely true here.

[mtn]

I'm talking apples to apples (house to house, or even apt. in walkable area vs. apt in less walkable area).  Going from urban to suburban isn't the same thing, especially given the house vs. apt discussion.

I apologize if this comes off snarky, as that is not my intent, but why specify, especially after the fact? Your thesis was that walkability (in general) means a price increase--my argument was that this isn't necessarily going to be the case even most of the time.

For the sake of apples-to-apples, however:
Average price for a 550 square feet in my building: $1400.
Apartment complex that's almost but not quite walking distance from my office: $1445 for 527 square feet, plus they require renters insurance.

What suburb do you work in? And where in Chicago? Both those rents seem fair for the area, but higher than they need to be to me.

FWIW, it would be far cheaper for my wife and I to live in the suburbs, but we would at the same time be losing the walkability. In the suburbs, the closer you get to the Metra (which happens to mostly be downtown in any particular suburb, although not necessarily closer to a grocery) the more expensive your housing.

For all intents and purposes, Deerfield--not too far from the MD-N line, (but not walking distance either). I just Googled "deerfield apartment" and took the first result--admittedly not the best sample size. I'm looking a bit more deeply and it looks like that's pretty average with a couple outliers in either direction.
Live in River North, but the rent in that building is a bit below average for the area, to be honest.

I personally would never move into an apartment in the suburbs. If we're sacrificing walkability, we might as well get a house and yard out of the deal. We've considered moving out of the city, but it always seems like we'd be giving so much city amazingness and paying soooo much more. But then again, dogs.

Ah. Yeah. River North prices are insane. Not sure how you can justify that one if you work in Deerfield!

As for Deerfield housing costs, it is going to be high and there aren't going to be a lot of rentals. I suppose if you get into Wheeling it will be cheaper, but that is getting farther. Nice area though (I hail from Libertyville originally, live in Bucktown/Logan Square area now).

[ShortInSeattle]

Pretty much everything I do is within a mile from my place and I love it. Work is the furthest away at 1.1 miles but the grocery store, parks, bars, restaurants, museums, central library, Pike Place Market, even the ferry terminal out to the islands is within a mile. It really does give me so much extra time to enjoy the day without having to worry about driving, parking, sitting in traffic, etc. I do feel lucky and know it isn't always possible.

We must be neighbors SeattleStache! We're in Belltown.

I hadn't thought of it this way before but DH and I do mostly hang out within a one mile radius of our home. Groceries, movies, parks, restaurants, the library, festivals; it's all right here. We love the easy proximity of everything and the fact that we have a waterfront park nearby.

We used to live in a semi-rural area and we got tired of the 45 minute commute to everywhere. All of our friends lived far away. We felt pretty bored out there although it was beautiful.

It sounds like a walkable/bikeable neighborhood (with friends) has similar benefits for MMM that city living does for us.

SIS

[Inaya]

Ah. Yeah. River North prices are insane. Not sure how you can justify that one if you work in Deerfield!

As for Deerfield housing costs, it is going to be high and there aren't going to be a lot of rentals. I suppose if you get into Wheeling it will be cheaper, but that is getting farther. Nice area though (I hail from Libertyville originally, live in Bucktown/Logan Square area now).

Work from home Mon+Fri (although my last boss wouldn't let me wfh and it was brutal), Metra partially subsidized by company--and the remainder is pre-tax--free Pace shuttle from Metra to office. Also, landlord is my cousin so my rent is several hundred lower than average for the building, and the building is older so it's lower than average for RN. The thing is I moved to Chicago to live IN Chicago, not Deerfield. :P

If we were to move out of RN, we'd probably look at the Bucktown/Wicker Park area--although I don't know how much longer it's going to be affordable.

[seattlecyclone]

I would personally say you should pick whatever radius you want where you would personally default to non-motorized transport most of the time. That's where the monetary savings comes in

I really don't think that's necessarily true.  If you get rid of your car, sure, you'll save some money, but I've already shown that INCREMENTAL miles are not very expensive assuming you still need to own one.  And the other side of the equation is that housing that is readily walkable tends to be (but is not always) significantly more expensive.  Like I said, a house a mile closer to downtown than my own would cost at least 30% more, because the area is more desirable.

I didn't read that entire other thread about cost per mile to own a car, but it looks from your first post there that you think 25˘/mile is a reasonable estimate for incremental vehicle ownership costs, including depreciation. Okay, we'll go with that.

We try to "live within a mile of our house" and only need to drive once every other day (give or take). Let's say the average place we drive to within the metro area is five miles away, so ten miles round trip for an average vehicle cost of $2.50 per trip. We make roughly 15 of these trips per month, for a cost of $37.50 in incremental vehicle ownership expense.

What if we lived in a car-oriented suburb? My parents have such a house, in a sea of low-density housing that is roughly two miles from anything but more houses. Grocery store? Two miles. Big box retail store? Two miles. Restaurant? Two miles at least, but not many are even that close. Public library? Four miles. School? 2-4 miles. Dentist? Five miles. Everything is spread out, and essentially nothing is in walking distance. Let's suppose we need to go to three different places in an average day (two workplaces and one other place), again with an average driving distance of five miles each way. That's 90 trips per month, or $225/month.

For the sake of this comparison I ignored car trips outside of the urbanized area (for hiking or other leisure/tourism purposes), since I figure I would make those trips about the same amount whether I lived in the city or the suburbs.

Already we're at $187.50/month in transportation savings from living in a walkable area.

But wait! Because we aren't both driving cars to our workplace each day, we only need to own one when living in a walkable area, instead of the two we would need to own in a suburb. Now we get to add in some of the fixed costs that you so conveniently hand-waved away in your other thread. We pay about $50/month for a liability-only policy, plus something like $10/month for registration and maybe $50/month in fixed depreciation on an older vehicle. That brings the total savings to roughly $300/month.

That's a pretty big difference! I can see where some people might find they save more than this in housing costs by living in a suburb, but it's a pretty high bar to clear.

[mtn]

If we were to move out of RN, we'd probably look at the Bucktown/Wicker Park area--although I don't know how much longer it's going to be affordable.

Probably not too much longer. My friends place (that they rented) in Logan Square, that is a worse location in most ways than our $1,400/month 800sf 1BR, just sold for $385k. That is a 2BR 2BA, but still--that is insane! I think with the continuing gentrification, along with the rising taxes, we'll be priced out of Chicago within 2 years and into the burbs. But we grew up in the burbs, so we're ok with it.

[Chris22]

That brings the total savings to roughly $300/month.

I could quibble with some of the math (3 trips every day at 10 miles per?) but either way, taking your $300/mo... that takes 334 months (28 years) to pay back an extra $100k of mortgage principle (no interest or additional property tax).  Which was my point.  Around here, $100k for a more walkable location is probably not out of the realm of reason.  Even $50k, it's a 14-year payback (let's assume opportunity cost and interest/taxes wash). 

[Senor Smallchange Soulpatch]

Everyone's getting way too hung up over the "1 mile" thing.

The real takeaway for me here is to not let your life degenerate into a never ending grind shuffling yourself (and your kids, if applicable) from one time sucking obligation to the next.  If you can keep that shit reasonably in check you'll find yourself staying closer to home naturally.

[SeattleStache]

Pretty much everything I do is within a mile from my place and I love it. Work is the furthest away at 1.1 miles but the grocery store, parks, bars, restaurants, museums, central library, Pike Place Market, even the ferry terminal out to the islands is within a mile. It really does give me so much extra time to enjoy the day without having to worry about driving, parking, sitting in traffic, etc. I do feel lucky and know it isn't always possible.

We must be neighbors SeattleStache! We're in Belltown.

I hadn't thought of it this way before but DH and I do mostly hang out within a one mile radius of our home. Groceries, movies, parks, restaurants, the library, festivals; it's all right here. We love the easy proximity of everything and the fact that we have a waterfront park nearby.

We used to live in a semi-rural area and we got tired of the 45 minute commute to everywhere. All of our friends lived far away. We felt pretty bored out there although it was beautiful.

It sounds like a walkable/bikeable neighborhood (with friends) has similar benefits for MMM that city living does for us.

SIS

Belltown is great! I'm in NW First Hill.

[Miss Piggy]

If you live near an older city that has an actual downtown like Longmont (where mmm lives) this isn't a bad idea.    For the rest of us in the burbs built post 1950, I think it gets a lot more doable if you stretch the mileage to about 3.5 miles.    That gets me to grocery stores, the library, the gym etc.

Same for me. Being "stuck" in suburbia means a wider radius to get to places we need to go. Yes, we could move, but we looked and looked and looked for a smaller house with a bigger garage, and were unable to find one. So for now (and the next ten years, which is what we committed to for this house, since we're now remodeling the kitchen), we're living with slightly longer commutes for our necessities.

[Inaya]

Everyone's getting way too hung up over the "1 mile" thing.

The real takeaway for me here is to not let your life degenerate into a never ending grind shuffling yourself (and your kids, if applicable) from one time sucking obligation to the next.  If you can keep that shit reasonably in check you'll find yourself staying closer to home naturally.

I tend to think of "walking distance" as the distance I can walk in 20 minutes. Happens to be about a mile at a leisurely stroll--my "city commuter" walk speed is about 17 min/mile. I don't really want to spend more than 20 minutes to get anywhere, whether by foot, train, automobile, or boat.

[nessness]

It's definitely an appealing idea. My work is about 8 miles away, but most of the places I go regularly are either within a mile of my house (park, gym, non-preferred grocery store, library, Home Depot) or between home and work (preferred grocery store, daycare). The biggest exception is my church, which is about 20 miles away, but I love it there and didn't find anywhere closer that met all my criteria, so it's worth the drive to me.

[greaper007]

The take away for this thread seems to be this.  For people that homeschool, or don't have kids and/or can afford $400,000+ housing (and possibly private school tuition) 1 mile radius big city or expensive burb living is great.   For the rest of us, there's a sacrifice. 

Personally, I live in one of the big sprawling burbs about 30 mins from MMM outside of Denver/Boulder.    We used to live in a great walkable neighborhood in Denver.   But, my son wasn't in school yet and my daughter wasn't born.   We wanted a house and a 50s trac home near the freeway was running $350,000+ (out of our price range).   Everyone said the school system would get better, but at that time the majority of students at the local high school didn't graduate.   My wife was also starting her own business and could move anywhere.

I chose a burb without a city center where we could buy a decent house for under $300,000 (taxes under $2000 a year) and a public school that outperforms many of the private schools in the area.   My wife worked from home, and then leased an office 10 mins away that directly between Boulder and Denver (where most of her contracts are)    The people are sort of dorky and there aren't any cool shops or restaurants to ride my bike to but we're saving tons of money by not following the hipsters.   

That said, I can't wait for my kids to graduate from high school so I can move into a small apartment, sailboat, school bus or tiny house in a funky neighborhood with plenty of queer people and people with strange haircuts.

[SandyBoxx]

We live right in the middle of a small town, and the 1-mile radius around us pretty much covers the whole place!  So all services, schools, work, activities etc are easily within walking/biking distance.  The only activities we drive to are the (under 9 miles) to the base of the ski hill for DH or XC skiing (under 4 miles to a spectacular golf course, if we golfed.)

The downside to this type of living have been mentioned briefly in other comments: the job market is small - so not a lot of mobility to increase wages, and we are at the mercy of only 2 grocery stores (and one small organic grocer) so there are not a lot of options when looking to slash grocery costs.  Housing prices are high (welcome to BC, where BC stands for "bring cash" - but that is relative...a single family home with garage (that may need some upgrades) with a large yard is available for under $300,000 CAD.  $450+ for a large finished home in the newer subdivisions, $1 Million + at the resort.

For us, upsides outweigh the downsides so we are staying put - if we ever move to a larger center, we hope to choose our home very carefully in order to maximize the walkability.  This seems a lot harder these days with the urban sprawl everywhere...

[Fishindude]

We are about five miles from the nearest gas or grocery, live in farm country.
The trick is to reduce your number of trips to town, and to always keep a supply list so that when you go to town you pick up everything you need.

I wouldn't like living in town within walking distance to everything.  Too many people and you can't pee in the yard or shoot guns.

[JoRocka]

I live outside Trenton- the only thing within a mile of my house worth anything is the CVS and the bar.  (Although- I've lived where I live for almost 3 years- the bar is literally on the corner of my tiny block and I've never been)
Deli/pizza place (now becoming a Portuguese place) and the library is 2 miles.

That's about.

upside- I did move and even with 3 major trips
Home > Work
Work > Gym
Gym> Dance studio
Studio > Home

I manage to keep my mileage under 25 miles per day if I make no other stops. compared to the 250-300 miles I used to drive as an inspector- I'm quite pleased with this arrangement.

[Northwestie]

I wouldn't like living in town within walking distance to everything.  Too many people and you can't pee in the yard or shoot guns.

Ha!  True that!!   3 years on 40 acres - now in the city.  Each has its benefits - thanks for the morning chuckle.

[jrhampt]

Wellll, I live roughly in the 5 miles around my house, if that counts for anything.  Grocery, pharmacy, doctors, art museum, parks, YMCA, library, orchard, hiking + biking trails.  Those are all within that radius; most are within 2.5 miles.  I do think it saves time and money being close to most of the things you use regularly.