Saving Money by Raising Family in a Big City

[freeazabird]

Do any of you raise a family in an urban area in part to save money and be in a more walkable community? If so, do you feel others judge you for having your kids in an urban environment? I don't have a child yet, but have received much vitriol when I explain my intent to stay in the city once my baby is born. Is this typical?

[Gin1984]

If someone decided to send "vitriol" my way for a decision regarding my child, they would get much more in return.  People like to judge parents, just ignore them.  Or be like me, and bitch back.  :)

[ivyhedge]

Do any of you raise a family in an urban area in part to save money and be in a more walkable community? If so, do you feel others judge you for having your kids in an urban environment? I don't have a child yet, but have received much vitriol when I explain my intent to stay in the city once my baby is born. Is this typical?

We moved into Boston last year and, if we have a kid, will raise it here. The "worst" we've heard is that we need a car. Absolutely must have one. Cannot be without one. Then I mention all our friends in NYC with kids sans car...crickets.

[Jamesqf]

I'm curious as to how you think it will save money.  (I'll assume that you're either FI or have work that you can do locally or by telecommuting, so costs of commuting to work &c aren't a factor.)  I would think that unless you choose a pricey resort area such as Aspen or Tahoe as your non-urban comparison, your housing costs will be much less outside the city/suburbs - and indeed, will decrease with distance.  Likewise, you will be able to do some things - grow a garden, dry clothes on a line - that you might not be able to do closer in.

So the idea seems to be that you will save money by living closer to urban amenities.  But the flip side of this is that you and the kid(s) will come to see those things as necessities, and will want to spend money on them, and on getting to them if you don't live in the city.  Whereas if you live some distance away, you can acquire the attitude that those things are not only not necessities, they're often impediments to a happier life, so you wind up not only saving on transportation costs, you don't spend money on the things themselves.

Take for a simple example Starbucks.  It may be cheaper to live a short walk from a Starbucks rather than having to drive 20 miles to get a daily fix.  But it's cheaper still to brew your own coffee at home.

[ivyhedge]

I'm curious as to how you think it will save money.  (I'll assume that you're either FI or have work that you can do locally or by telecommuting, so costs of commuting to work &c aren't a factor.)  I would think that unless you choose a pricey resort area such as Aspen or Tahoe as your non-urban comparison, your housing costs will be much less outside the city/suburbs - and indeed, will decrease with distance.  Likewise, you will be able to do some things - grow a garden, dry clothes on a line - that you might not be able to do closer in.

So the idea seems to be that you will save money by living closer to urban amenities.  But the flip side of this is that you and the kid(s) will come to see those things as necessities, and will want to spend money on them, and on getting to them if you don't live in the city.  Whereas if you live some distance away, you can acquire the attitude that those things are not only not necessities, they're often impediments to a happier life, so you wind up not only saving on transportation costs, you don't spend money on the things themselves.

Take for a simple example Starbucks.  It may be cheaper to live a short walk from a Starbucks rather than having to drive 20 miles to get a daily fix.  But it's cheaper still to brew your own coffee at home.

Hi, James,


I don't *think* it will save us money. Not only has it already, but the location has made us money.


Also, a number of the things you mentioned don't interest us at all (yard, clothing outside, etc). We both knew that, after 14 years together, we wanted to be in the thick of it.


Although we're more complicated than "Boglehead" or "Mustachian", we tend toward the former's camp: we didn't delude ourselves into thinking that living in a city would be "inexpensive", but we will happily pay for what we really enjoy. We're not swayed by advertising, and don't see "amenities" as necessities (although the arts, well represented here, are). We spend less than everyone we know, and make more than almost all of them. And we already lived in three Boston suburbs: much longer commutes, similar prices, and areas in which we would never settle.

[Jamesqf]

And we already lived in three Boston suburbs: much longer commutes, similar prices, and areas in which we would never settle.

Suburbs are part of the urban area, so you are not comparing urban versus non-urban here, you are comparing various urban locations.

[Eric]

And we already lived in three Boston suburbs: much longer commutes, similar prices, and areas in which we would never settle.

Suburbs are part of the urban area, so you are not comparing urban versus non-urban here, you are comparing various urban locations.

You're the only person on the face of the earth who thinks this.  Literally every other person makes the distinction between city and suburbs.

[CarDude]

Do any of you raise a family in an urban area in part to save money and be in a more walkable community? If so, do you feel others judge you for having your kids in an urban environment? I don't have a child yet, but have received much vitriol when I explain my intent to stay in the city once my baby is born. Is this typical?

Who cares what others think? Do what's best for your family. Boston's an awesome place to live. :D

[MrsPete]

I'd be interested to hear how your location has made you money.

You're kidding yourself if you think you're not swayed to some extent by advertising.  Recently we had a thread on that topic on this site.  Regardless, children are swayed by advertising and peers -- wait 'til you see your 3-year old stop playing with his toys and go over to watch the commercials -- and in an urban location, your child will have more peers who will influence them.  You may personally choose second-hand clothes and cook at home, but your child will have friends and classmates whose parents spend big on clothes and eat out every night -- and you're more likely to encounter more of that in a city environment.  When you choose to live in the city, you're choosing a faster-paced lifestyle and peers who will "spend big". 

If you spend less than other people, you can still do that no matter where you choose to live -- though the details of how that can be accomplished differ depending upon where you live.  You can teach your child to be frugal both through word and example, but it'll take time for those lessons to sink in. 

[RootofGood]

We aren't in a big city.  Probably more accurate to call it medium size (Raleigh NC).  We like living here and raising a family here because housing is relatively cheap (ours is probably worth $150k), and a 0.25-0.33 acre lot isn't hard to come by.  Schools in the district are pretty decent (and far surpass many rural schools and private schools).  Nice parks (ranging from playgrounds and community centers to big urban parks to large forested parks with lakes/rivers) and urban greenways nearby.  Tons of entertainment (mostly free) in the city.  We also have a great parks and rec system where all day summer camps are $53/wk, and city pools and the city water park are $2 per kid for all day admission.  I'm at the library and community center weekly for kids programs that are all free (in general).

We are 4 miles from downtown, but live in what was a suburban neighborhood 40-50 years ago.  I think most would consider it urban today (if not based on density of 3-4 houses per acre, then proximity to downtown).  It's very walkable - school, library, parks, community center, grocery store, restaurants and ethnic stores and tons of other shopping are within 0.5-1.0 miles. 

If we lived in a slightly less expensive rural area, we would definitely want two cars (we're thinking about cutting back to 1).  Instead of driving a few thousand miles per year, it might be 10-15k. 

We don't have an HOA, and tons of people have clothes lines, chicken coops, and gardens here. 

[galliver]

Ultimately, the decision of where you live (and raise children) has much to do with temperament and personality and isn't necessarily just a financial choice. Personally, I think raising kids in an urban environment would be difficult, although I think it's a great place to be young and single. My personal biggest sticking points would be transportation and schools. I do seriously wonder if it's actually cost-effective after you consider that everything costs more in cities (food, etc), that you eventually have to get them transit passes/tickets, that if you send them to private school if the local public school is lacking, that upgrading to a 2BR from a studio/1BR would cost more in the city relative to suburbs...I don't know how many of those are relevant for you. Also, you say you want to give your kids access to the arts, etc. Are these going to be free or cheap opportunities (library, park district, "free days") or things you'll have to pay for? Will you take them on vacations (I hope yes!), and if so what will those look like financially (if you don't have a car, chances are you won't be going camping?)

You can definitely raise kids and raise them well in the city, not arguing that! But I don't know that it's an automatic money-saving method...

[Beridian]

Do any of you raise a family in an urban area in part to save money and be in a more walkable community? If so, do you feel others judge you for having your kids in an urban environment? I don't have a child yet, but have received much vitriol when I explain my intent to stay in the city once my baby is born. Is this typical?

I live in a fairly urban area with my kids.  I can't say I have been criticized because of this choice, but sometimes I pick up a slight smug air of superiority from the indebted  suburb dwellers.   I have to say I really am not in love with my present surroundings, but it is affordable and there are many conveniences (lots of things within walking distance is a big one).  Later in life I would appreciate living some place with more scenic beauty, but for now my current situation serves my purpose.   As far as kids go, I think the environment is good for them.  they get exposed to a lot of different people and experiences.  They see the rich and the poor and mingle with other races and cultures.   Sometimes I think people shelter their kids too much to the child's own determent.

[capital]

I'm curious as to how you think it will save money.  (I'll assume that you're either FI or have work that you can do locally or by telecommuting, so costs of commuting to work &c aren't a factor.)  I would think that unless you choose a pricey resort area such as Aspen or Tahoe as your non-urban comparison, your housing costs will be much less outside the city/suburbs - and indeed, will decrease with distance.  Likewise, you will be able to do some things - grow a garden, dry clothes on a line - that you might not be able to do closer in.

Some cities— Pittsburgh & Milwaukee, for example— are very low-cost, and still conducive to a walk/bike/transit lifestyle. Even in NYC, gardening and drying clothes on a line are perfectly possible— I'm bummed my old tenement's clothesline pole has been left to to rust.

Of course, the really big assumption here is that one can work remotely, which is only possible for relatively few jobs, and can often limit one's earning potential pretty substantially. High salaries and a modest lifestyle make saving a ton of money pretty  eeasy.

Once one retires, things are different, but it's a pretty big assumption that folks won't want to be go to artistic events and volunteer and generally be active in a community, all of which requires transportation.

And in terms of giving kids access to the arts— I went to an arts magnet elementary school in Milwaukee, which made regular field trisp to the symphony and art museum at very low cost.

The temperament of one's peers depends, too, a lot on the city one chooses— rich neighborhoods in rich cities like NYC/Boston/SF/Seattle will have a lot more big spenders around versus more modest cities in the Midwest, and even rich cities have less-rich neigbrohoods.

[abhe8]

you don't have to live in an "urban" location to not use a car. we lived in a small town, about 100k, in the midwest, in an old/small house withing walking distance of both our jobs, schools, stores, library, farmers market - almost everything. we walked and rode bikes and saved the car for the 2 hour drive to visit the grandparents.

i don't think that living in a big city will save you money. no way, no how. that might still be your prefered location, that might be where your job is and the arts you value, and thats ok, but there are PLENTY of smaller, walk-able and bike-able communities with MUCH lower COL then Boston. :)

[taekvideo]

I live in a small suburb in the midwest too... everything I could possibly need within walking/biking distance... house only cost $60k (4bd 1750sf) and the general COL is much less than pretty much any urban area.
super low crime rate too :)  Why would I want to go urban?

[chopper41]

I regretted moving to the suburbs after getting married.  We didn't have any kids when we moved, but I thought living in the suburbs was the next, natural step (after marriage).  It was another 3 years until we had our first child.  If I were to do it all again, I would have stayed in our loft downtown, until she was ready for kindergarten.  That would have given us 8 more years downtown.   

[ShortInSeattle]

Most of our friends move out of the city when they have kids, before the kids reach school age.  The reasons why are:

1) Concerns about quality/availability of schools.
2) Desire for a larger place to live (square footage) at a lower cost.
3) Not very many kids downtown, and interest in having more friends for the kid.

Your success with raising kids in the city might depend on the city itself. I don't see a lot of kids in Seattle, although I hear that this is starting to change.

I see all the perks of city living and get why you'd want to stay.

SIS

[Rural]

And we already lived in three Boston suburbs: much longer commutes, similar prices, and areas in which we would never settle.

Suburbs are part of the urban area, so you are not comparing urban versus non-urban here, you are comparing various urban locations.

You're the only person on the face of the earth who thinks this.  Literally every other person makes the distinction between city and suburbs.

Except the official government cartographers who lay out the metropolitan areas.

[rujancified]

Do any of you raise a family in an urban area in part to save money and be in a more walkable community? If so, do you feel others judge you for having your kids in an urban environment? I don't have a child yet, but have received much vitriol when I explain my intent to stay in the city once my baby is born. Is this typical?

We moved into Boston last year and, if we have a kid, will raise it here. The "worst" we've heard is that we need a car. Absolutely must have one. Cannot be without one. Then I mention all our friends in NYC with kids sans car...crickets.

I do NOT understand that attitude at all! I lived in MA (city and suburb) for 10+ years as an adult and only had a car for 2-3 of those years. Was it easier to have a car? Sure! But it wasn't necessary.

To the OP: People all over the world do just fine raising kids in large cities. I grew up in the burbs and was always jealous of my city-dwelling cousins. Judgmental people suck. Live your life your way.

[Thegoblinchief]

For me it would really come down to access to nature. Where I live in Milwaukee, there's a lot of easily accessible green space, ranging from landscaped park with playgrounds to a long, thin swathe of mostly wild forest bordering either side of a river. Kids need to get out and run around.

I personally like having a yard, that way we can get outdoors without having to consciously walk or bike somewhere. This is especially nice when the kids get old enough to play unsupervised for long periods of time.

I am in the city, small lot, but it has a yard. It's not a concrete jungle of rowhouses, condos, etc.

[Erica/NWEdible]

The only potential issue I can see is schools. Urban core areas tend to not have the best schools, and that might mean paying for private school if that's a concern. Otherwise, if it works for your family, why not? I like being in a small town near a city, but there are a ton of cultural advantages (museums, zoos, events, etc.) that tend to be more available in the urbs.

[James]

As far as kids go, I think the environment is good for them.  they get exposed to a lot of different people and experiences.  They see the rich and the poor and mingle with other races and cultures.   Sometimes I think people shelter their kids too much to the child's own determent.

I currently live in a small town, but I do see a lot of value to the above.


Everyone is so different, both in society at large and in those living frugally. Trying to judge based on location or lifestyle or anything else by itself is not really relevant. I can see how someone could make it work very well in any location, and how they could make it work very poorly in any location. Just have to find what works best for you, and learn as much as possible from others who share your priorities so you can try to avoid mistakes before you make them.

[Gin1984]

Do any of you raise a family in an urban area in part to save money and be in a more walkable community? If so, do you feel others judge you for having your kids in an urban environment? I don't have a child yet, but have received much vitriol when I explain my intent to stay in the city once my baby is born. Is this typical?

We moved into Boston last year and, if we have a kid, will raise it here. The "worst" we've heard is that we need a car. Absolutely must have one. Cannot be without one. Then I mention all our friends in NYC with kids sans car...crickets.

I do NOT understand that attitude at all! I lived in MA (city and suburb) for 10+ years as an adult and only had a car for 2-3 of those years. Was it easier to have a car? Sure! But it wasn't necessary.

To the OP: People all over the world do just fine raising kids in large cities. I grew up in the burbs and was always jealous of my city-dwelling cousins. Judgmental people suck. Live your life your way.

My only issue (and the reason we are getting a second car) is that daycare closes at 5:30 around here (vs 6 where I grew up) and work won't let me leave till 5pm.  Sadly there are no daycares close enough to walk. 

[freeazabird]

I think the largest reason I get such a strong negative response to raising kids in the city is because of the schools. There are a few good schools in the district, but overall the district sucks. The plan for most other people of my economic background is to have fun in the city while childless then haul ass to the suburbs. I really like the walkability, diversity, and density in the city, not to mention my same house doubles in price if you move it across the city line. I don't get why people who enjoy urban living bail for the suburbs as soon as they have kids or their kid turns 5. If people of economic means who like urban living just stayed put the schools would not be so abysmal and it would be a win-win.

[Jamesqf]

For me it would really come down to access to nature. Where I live in Milwaukee, there's a lot of easily accessible green space, ranging from landscaped park with playgrounds to a long, thin swathe of mostly wild forest bordering either side of a river. Kids need to get out and run around.

Exactly!  Being able to swim in the creek, run around in the woods, pick berries and such... Really, those are the only good things I remember from my childhood.

I don't think the question was really about whether it was better for the kid(s), though, but whether it would be cheaper to raise them in an urban environment.  I honestly don't think that's going to be the case, in general, though I'm sure you can find particular cities that are cheaper than some rural areas.  But is it really going to be cheaper to raise a kid in Boston, than in say Ashfield http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashfield,_Massachusetts 

[brooklynguy]

I posted this recently in one of the threads in the real estate forum but am pasting it here because it is relevant to this discussion:

My Brooklyn row house is absurdly expensive by national standards, but I still think it is consistent with a mustachian lifestyle.  Living in a global city offers lifestyle arbitrage opportunities that aren't available elsewhere.  I take full advantage of the benefits NYC has to offer but my family's spending level (other than housing expense) is on par with MMM (in absolute terms, without any cost of living adjustments).  The benefit of high local incomes doesn't end once you attain FIRE and quit your job -- there are more high income side hustles and other "work while you're retired" opportunities available than in your average city.  I feel less compelled to spend money on travel because of the abundance of culture and diversity in my own back yard -- for example, world class cuisine of any ethnicity imaginable is available within easy walking, biking or subway-riding distance (and, since the best ethnic food is usually found in the immigrant enclaves, there tends to be an inverse relationship between quality and cost).  My absurdly expensive house is also exceedingly small and energy efficient by national standards, and is a multi-family with a high income rental apartment that offsets part of my mortgage expense and will provide a significant share of my early retirement income.  So, I think it is possible to live (and purchase expensive real estate) in NY, or SF, or the expensive city of your choice, without giving up your mustachian bona fides (or earning a face punch).  Or maybe all of this is simply rationalizing what is really just my desire to remain in the city I was born in and am deeply in love with.

[unix_kung_fu]

Chicagoan here. I can't imagine not living in a big city. The neighborhood I'm in (in it's small subsection anyway) is mostly 30-something and 40-something families. Strollers every where, a couple of schools nearby, big church, etc. Not too far off, like anywhere else in this city, the demographics change when you cross a bordering street.

Most couples I know didn't even own a car until they had a baby. All those years of not paying for gasoline, insurance, taxes, tags, etc. With a pretty good transmit system and most employers offer monthly transit benefit that is deducted from your checks pre-tax.

Funny story I once quit a job and got a better one primarily because my then employers HR dept was incompetent. My new job didn't offer transit benefit because I worked from home for an out of state company. But my incompetent previous HR department didnt cancel my monthly transmit pass ($90/mo value) and my cell phone they paid for.. After a couple years I decided they might eventually catch on and all the sudden I'd lose phone service, no big deal, but I wanted to keep my number. So I contacted them and asked them to release it so I can get it moved to my own account - and eventually my CTA card quit working after that, heh.

Besides public transit you can walk everywhere, nice trails and parks, a library in every neighborhood. Tons of free things to do in the weekend.

There are some pitfalls though. You can get lazy and just start taking cabs or Uber everywhere. I used to do that, not anymore. But you definitely have access to things people in small cities don't. For instance there is a neighborhood bar right on the corner of where I live and I have to walk by it every day and struggle to not stop in and order a beer, or all the uber expensive restaurants by me as well.

[Jamesqf]

feel less compelled to spend money on travel because of the abundance of culture and diversity in my own back yard -- for example, world class cuisine of any ethnicity imaginable is available within easy walking, biking or subway-riding distance (and, since the best ethnic food is usually found in the immigrant enclaves, there tends to be an inverse relationship between quality and cost).

There are some good examples of lifestyle issues there.  Certainly you have lots more ethnic restaurants in the city, but doesn't that up your eating costs by tempting you to eat out more often, rather than cooking at home?  (You can get almost any ethnic cookbook from your public library, and I for one enjoy trying new recipes.)

Same with travel: if what you want from travel is culture & ethnic diversity, then of course you save money by living in a place where you don't have to travel to get it.  OTOH, if you're travelling for scenery & outdoor recreation opportunities, as many people do, you save money by living in a rural area where those things are close at hand.

Most couples I know didn't even own a car until they had a baby. All those years of not paying for gasoline, insurance, taxes, tags, etc. With a pretty good transmit system and most employers offer monthly transit benefit that is deducted from your checks pre-tax.

I have to wonder, though, whether a properly mustachian car is not cheaper than paying for public transit.  Just to pick an example, the CTA web site says the 'L' train fare from O'Hare airport is $5, but it'd cost me about $2 to drive the 20-some miles from my house to the local airport.

[Argyle]

But don't you have to pay to park at the airport?

[freeazabird]

Chicagoan here. I can't imagine not living in a big city. The neighborhood I'm in (in it's small subsection anyway) is mostly 30-something and 40-something families. Strollers every where, a couple of schools nearby, big church, etc. Not too far off, like anywhere else in this city, the demographics change when you cross a bordering street.

Most couples I know didn't even own a car until they had a baby. All those years of not paying for gasoline, insurance, taxes, tags, etc. With a pretty good transmit system and most employers offer monthly transit benefit that is deducted from your checks pre-tax.

Funny story I once quit a job and got a better one primarily because my then employers HR dept was incompetent. My new job didn't offer transit benefit because I worked from home for an out of state company. But my incompetent previous HR department didnt cancel my monthly transmit pass ($90/mo value) and my cell phone they paid for.. After a couple years I decided they might eventually catch on and all the sudden I'd lose phone service, no big deal, but I wanted to keep my number. So I contacted them and asked them to release it so I can get it moved to my own account - and eventually my CTA card quit working after that, heh.

Besides public transit you can walk everywhere, nice trails and parks, a library in every neighborhood. Tons of free things to do in the weekend.

There are some pitfalls though. You can get lazy and just start taking cabs or Uber everywhere. I used to do that, not anymore. But you definitely have access to things people in small cities don't. For instance there is a neighborhood bar right on the corner of where I live and I have to walk by it every day and struggle to not stop in and order a beer, or all the uber expensive restaurants by me as well.

Do most of the families in your neighborhood utilize the public schools? Or do they pay for private?

[brooklynguy]

There are some good examples of lifestyle issues there.  Certainly you have lots more ethnic restaurants in the city, but doesn't that up your eating costs by tempting you to eat out more often, rather than cooking at home?  (You can get almost any ethnic cookbook from your public library, and I for one enjoy trying new recipes.)

That's an odd way of looking at it -- if you view restaurants as "tempting," you must view them as desirable, so having an abundance of them nearby can only be a good thing.  But if you prefer to cook at home, the abundance of restaurants won't stop you.  I personally cook at home most of the time but also eat out regularly (typically once or twice a week).  And, as I said, my family's spending levels (excluding housing costs) are on par with MMM's on an absolute dollar basis (and actually less on a per capita level, since we're a family of four).

Same with travel: if what you want from travel is culture & ethnic diversity, then of course you save money by living in a place where you don't have to travel to get it.  OTOH, if you're travelling for scenery & outdoor recreation opportunities, as many people do, you save money by living in a rural area where those things are close at hand.

Fair enough, but traveling to experience exotic cultures is generally more expensive than traveling for nature experiences.  Most of the travel I currently do is the latter, in the form of trips to nearby national parks, which is very cheap.  And city living does not mean that nature and outdoor experiences are a world away.  I live steps from Prospect Park (Brooklyn's answer to Manhattan's Central Park), and you'd be surprised how far from the city you can feel hiking through the woods of that park.  And the True Great Outdoors are available within a 60-or-so mile radius of the city -- practically biking distance.

Do most of the families in your neighborhood utilize the public schools? Or do they pay for private?

I also live in an extremely family-oriented neighborhood, in a good school district.  There's a sizable contingent of elite Ivy League obsessed folks who send their offspring to private school, but most of us utilize (and are very happy with) the public school system.

[unix_kung_fu]

Chicagoan here. I can't imagine not living in a big city. The neighborhood I'm in (in it's small subsection anyway) is mostly 30-something and 40-something families. Strollers every where, a couple of schools nearby, big church, etc. Not too far off, like anywhere else in this city, the demographics change when you cross a bordering street.

Most couples I know didn't even own a car until they had a baby. All those years of not paying for gasoline, insurance, taxes, tags, etc. With a pretty good transmit system and most employers offer monthly transit benefit that is deducted from your checks pre-tax.

Funny story I once quit a job and got a better one primarily because my then employers HR dept was incompetent. My new job didn't offer transit benefit because I worked from home for an out of state company. But my incompetent previous HR department didnt cancel my monthly transmit pass ($90/mo value) and my cell phone they paid for.. After a couple years I decided they might eventually catch on and all the sudden I'd lose phone service, no big deal, but I wanted to keep my number. So I contacted them and asked them to release it so I can get it moved to my own account - and eventually my CTA card quit working after that, heh.

Besides public transit you can walk everywhere, nice trails and parks, a library in every neighborhood. Tons of free things to do in the weekend.

There are some pitfalls though. You can get lazy and just start taking cabs or Uber everywhere. I used to do that, not anymore. But you definitely have access to things people in small cities don't. For instance there is a neighborhood bar right on the corner of where I live and I have to walk by it every day and struggle to not stop in and order a beer, or all the uber expensive restaurants by me as well.

Do most of the families in your neighborhood utilize the public schools? Or do they pay for private?

There are two grammar schools about 3 blocks from each other in my neighborhood, I live in the between. One of them is prestigious and hard to get into, I'm guessing its like a private school but not.. not sure how that works. People from all over the city apply to get their child in. The other is a regular school and I see a ton of neighbors walking their kids to/from there.

A lot of rich people do pay for private schooling but most families that are paranoid about raising a family in a big city end up moving to the burbs. That is one life I hope I never end up with (no offense to any suburbanites here intended, just not for me).

There are of course some rotten schools, the teachers are underpaid. Mayor Emmanuel closed a loot of schools down, crooked politics, etc. But in all honesty the worst of it is in the ghettos where kids have to walk by open-air drug markets on the street corner, avoid gunfire on a near daily basis, and where the cops are afraid to patrol, each day on their way to/from school.

[Jamesqf]

But don't you have to pay to park at the airport?

That depends.  On the commercial side, yes, but I would simply get a neighbor to drop me off.  On the private side where I kept my plane, parking the car was free.

That's an odd way of looking at it -- if you view restaurants as "tempting," you must view them as desirable, so having an abundance of them nearby can only be a good thing.  But if you prefer to cook at home, the abundance of restaurants won't stop you. 

Makes more sense if you think of the ethnic food itself as the temptation.  So in the city, you could choose to cook it yourself, or you could do as many people do, and spend money going to restaurants.  Indeed, isn't there almost a circular definition there?  If people didn't spend bunches of money going to restaurants, the restaurant owners would not be making enough money to stay in business; ergo, eating out must cost more than eating at home.

[Trimatty471]

As a current city dweller, I am loving the responses to this.

I could save tons of money and time raising kids in the city.  Save transportation cost, commuting time, property taxes and etc.

And still have some of the amenities like the suburbs. 

The only thing that would change my mind is the school situation.

[aspiringnomad]

Another city dweller here. I think I would seriously regret moving out to the burbs for any practical reasons, including children. I plan to never own a car pre-FIRE and love walking everywhere I need to go (not just restaurants, bars, coffee joints and other non-mustachian places, but friends' homes, parks, and free museums as well.) However, I've got just a one-bedroom condo with a den on a separate floor, which I hear is not ideal for raising small kids. With real estate what it is in DC these days, I don't think upsizing my home is compatible with my FIRE plans, even factoring in whatever equity I have in my current place...which means kids maybe shouldn't be a consideration until we FIRE and move to a lower COL area or country. So city life is perfectly mustachian and enjoyable for me, but yes, kids would complicate that a bit.

[foobar]

We aren't in a big city.  Probably more accurate to call it medium size (Raleigh NC).  We like living here and raising a family here because housing is relatively cheap (ours is probably worth $150k), and a 0.25-0.33 acre lot isn't hard to come by.

.25 acres is a huge lot. In the urban areas I am familiar with you tend to get 2-4k sq ft lots (i.e. <1/10th of an acre) and you need to go to the suburbs if you want a large 1/5th of an acre lot.

Seriousy labeling stuff isn't worthwhile. You can live in a nice suburban town and have everything walkable and you can live in an urban city (even one with good mass transit) and realize you need a car because the stuff you want isn't accessible. As far as judging. Nobody cares about you or your kids.

[MandalayVA]

I think the largest reason I get such a strong negative response to raising kids in the city is because of the schools. There are a few good schools in the district, but overall the district sucks. The plan for most other people of my economic background is to have fun in the city while childless then haul ass to the suburbs. I really like the walkability, diversity, and density in the city, not to mention my same house doubles in price if you move it across the city line. I don't get why people who enjoy urban living bail for the suburbs as soon as they have kids or their kid turns 5. If people of economic means who like urban living just stayed put the schools would not be so abysmal and it would be a win-win.

THIS, although admittedly in my neighborhood there are a couple of good public elementary schools, which means that the families bolt when the kid is 10 rather than 5.  I see very few junior high-aged kids and practically no teenagers, at least in my immediate neighborhood.  Ironically, we sold our house in the 'burbs to a young couple expecting their first child ... who were moving out of the same neighborhood we were moving into, primarily for the schools.

[vivian]

I think the largest reason I get such a strong negative response to raising kids in the city is because of the schools. There are a few good schools in the district, but overall the district sucks. The plan for most other people of my economic background is to have fun in the city while childless then haul ass to the suburbs. I really like the walkability, diversity, and density in the city, not to mention my same house doubles in price if you move it across the city line. I don't get why people who enjoy urban living bail for the suburbs as soon as they have kids or their kid turns 5. If people of economic means who like urban living just stayed put the schools would not be so abysmal and it would be a win-win.

This may upset some people, but most parents are bad judges of school quality. In my job, I see detailed reports on the growth made by students in specific schools--holding constant the level of poverty. I can't help but notice that most schools considered "good" in the public's perception aren't really all that great in terms of student learning. They mostly get lucky to have more affluent students (and parents). And the same thing happens in reverse. There are some schools providing terrific education to their students, but the students come in at such a low level and face such huge distractions in their personal lives, that the overall proficiency rate is underwhelming. If you pay for private school, the biggest thing you are paying for is a different set of peers for your child. Not necessarily better quality teachers or instruction.

Perhaps more importantly for you, by far the number one predictor of how your kid will do in school is you (i.e., the kid's parents). I live in a mid-size city-in the urban center. I will happily send my son to our local public school even though this district is generally considered failing by most of the public. Not only because I know that he will do just fine in school with his highly educated and involved parents. But also because ensuring he is exposed to people different from him will help him be a better person in the long run.

[RootofGood]

Perhaps more importantly for you, by far the number one predictor of how your kid will do in school is you (i.e., the kid's parents). I live in a mid-size city-in the urban center. I will happily send my son to our local public school even though this district is generally considered failing by most of the public. Not only because I know that he will do just fine in school with his highly educated and involved parents. But also because ensuring he is exposed to people different from him will help him be a better person in the long run.

+1  We are in a Title I school that has some of the worst demographics and test scores in the district (out of 100+ elementary schools).  Unsurprisingly, the 30-40% of the students who have limited English proficiency tend not to perform well on tests that primarily examine English proficiency.  My children are doing very well and they are learning a lot (academically and socially).  It also lets them see how a diverse segment of the population lives. 

[RootofGood]

We aren't in a big city.  Probably more accurate to call it medium size (Raleigh NC).  We like living here and raising a family here because housing is relatively cheap (ours is probably worth $150k), and a 0.25-0.33 acre lot isn't hard to come by.

.25 acres is a huge lot. In the urban areas I am familiar with you tend to get 2-4k sq ft lots (i.e. <1/10th of an acre) and you need to go to the suburbs if you want a large 1/5th of an acre lot.

Seriousy labeling stuff isn't worthwhile. You can live in a nice suburban town and have everything walkable and you can live in an urban city (even one with good mass transit) and realize you need a car because the stuff you want isn't accessible. As far as judging. Nobody cares about you or your kids.

0.20-0.25 acre lots are pretty common in the historic urban core of Raleigh dating back to WWI era neighborhoods.  Some neighborhoods were platted with lots closer to the 0.1 to 0.15 acre size from the same 1910-ish era.  We live in what was a suburban neighborhood in the 1950's but wouldn't be considered suburban today due to the expansive growth of the city (in the horizontal plane).   

It's definitely location dependent.  I would rather be car-less where I live today than in the middle of downtown where there are no grocery stores closer than 1.5 miles. 

[rocketpj]

Well, we moved out of the city and saw our expenses go up dramatically.  Yes, we now live in a house rather than an apartment, but we also have a car, must drive our kids to places we used to ride, bus or walk before.  And our commute is an issue - both of us only commute a couple days a week, and by bike/ferry/bus, but it takes time and does cost money.

Had we chosen to stack our two kids in a bunk bed, keep our smallish apartment and not leave the city we'd definitely be in better financial shape.  On the other hand, our kids can ride their bikes up and down our street without any real danger, and we have lots of forest and beaches ready to hand - rather than a long way away.  Vancouver is one of the best cities in the world to live in, but it is expensive and has some issues (paltry compared to most US cities, but still issues).

Honestly, part of it depends on your kids, your personality and your aspirations.  For us, a house and garden became more important than a vibrant arts scene.  For others it is the opposite.  Our one kid has been a born athlete since he started walking - a trait he did not inherit from either of us - and we do some driving to support him in his aspirations - in the city we'd be driving even more (I suspect).

[hybrid]

I think the largest reason I get such a strong negative response to raising kids in the city is because of the schools. There are a few good schools in the district, but overall the district sucks. The plan for most other people of my economic background is to have fun in the city while childless then haul ass to the suburbs. I really like the walkability, diversity, and density in the city, not to mention my same house doubles in price if you move it across the city line. I don't get why people who enjoy urban living bail for the suburbs as soon as they have kids or their kid turns 5. If people of economic means who like urban living just stayed put the schools would not be so abysmal and it would be a win-win.

THIS, although admittedly in my neighborhood there are a couple of good public elementary schools, which means that the families bolt when the kid is 10 rather than 5.  I see very few junior high-aged kids and practically no teenagers, at least in my immediate neighborhood.  Ironically, we sold our house in the 'burbs to a young couple expecting their first child ... who were moving out of the same neighborhood we were moving into, primarily for the schools.

+1 for the quality of Richmond schools. Not sure where the OP is from, but I can assure you virtually no one who prefers the city raises an eyebrow when someone with a kid about to enter middle school bolts to the suburbs for better schools. I've thought about this quite a bit since finding this forum (as my kids are grown) and in Richmond, a medium sized city, I think it would be tough to actually save any money in the city. Property is significantly more expensive, taxes are higher, and there aren't as many areas where you could live sans a vehicle. The city just isn't dense enough and the nasty, muggy summers and occasionally very cold winters (like the last two) would make going without a car completely difficult. There is a part of me that would love to move back into the city, but for now we are staying put just outside the city line in an older Chesterfield County suburb built in the 1960s. It has been by far the most economical choice if one wants to own rather than rent.

Bottom line, Richmond's cool factor has gone up quite a bit in the last ten years and it shows in the market. One pays a premium to be in the better parts of our city, and whatever savings one could get from driving less are off set by paying more in other areas. 

[usmarine1975]

We get these comments all the time.  I live in a small City it really is hardly a City but I digress.  The School's suck and that tends to be the biggest question is what we will do when they go to school.  Our oldest is just over 2 with our 2nd due to be born any day now.  Actually 2 weeks late.  My mother was disappointed when we moved to the City as she felt she moved away to get us away from the City.  And me moving back doesn't make sense to her.  My wife and I love it. 

Our answer for schooling is that plenty of Charter or other schools exist.  Even if I lived in the Suburbs my children would not go to public school.  I detest the institution and that I have to pay into them.  I have currently invested just over 150k to a school district I will never use in the form of property taxes.  I can't vote or say anything in the meetings at that school because I do not reside in that district.  And that 150k is the school portion of my property taxes.  I also pay taxes to the district in the City in which I live.  The public school system is a failed system and needs replaced.

In the City I live a property can be had for a very cheap price depending on the location you want to live and how much work you want to do.  We bought a 5 bedroom that needs some work and the area is in the middle as far as safe, not safe.  1 block one way changes the dynamics.  We also are a minority in our neighborhood.  But we love it.  We have a yard and I have purchased the lot's behind our home as well which gives us more space to garden etc...  My wife has no desire to use a clothesline.  I won't even try to have that discussion.

I agree with those who have stated do what you want, as far as it costing more to live in the City that is not always the case.  Good luck in your decision.

And to answer Yes people give us a hard time on a regular basis they just don't understand us wanting to live in the City.

[iris lily]

I don't have children, so let's get that out of the way immediately.

But I live in an urban core in a very affordable city in the midwest, St. Louis, so it's not a matter of city being very expensive. The city, since it is not highly valued, tends to be less expensive for real estate. There is plenty of parking on the street, so households have multiple cars, and some have garages.

I suppose the hard core city aficionados would say that this isn't a "real "city but I believe that it is. The housing stock here is fantastic. You can get solid brick houses with gorgeous original woodwork and amenities for $150,000.

My neighborhood began gentrifying 3 -4 decades ago, and some of those parents are still here with their children now grown and with grandchildren, all living in the city. The public schools suck, yet at the moment it is easy to get non-minority children into a magnet school in the lower grades, which is the best that the city has to offer. So, I would probably use a magnet school for a few years.  There are only a handful of private high schools in the city I'm thinking maybe 2 (?) --one Catholic, one non-denominational.

I admire those who raised their children in this neighborhood, they are the true pioneers. It is beautiful here, walkable, and lovely, yet I would worry about my children out on the street. I worry about my PETS being outside without me supervising, so child-worry would be a big deal.

[infogoon]

Do any of you raise a family in an urban area in part to save money and be in a more walkable community? If so, do you feel others judge you for having your kids in an urban environment? I don't have a child yet, but have received much vitriol when I explain my intent to stay in the city once my baby is born. Is this typical?

I'm raising my kids in an urban area -- we live in Buffalo, NY, a city of a quarter million people in a metropolitan area of about a million. We choose to live in the city not only because it's more convenient and walkable, but also because (like most Rust Belt cities) the price of a house and the associated taxes are much lower in the city proper than they are in the surrounding suburbs. We are the only family among our group of friends who live in the city, though a few who are renting are considering buying houses near us.

There's some judging going on, mostly because the public school district here is "failing" and people worry about what kind of education our kids will get. Some of the schools here are good and some are bad, and it takes a lot of parental effort (and luck, and sometimes money) to put your children into the former rather than the latter. There are also some typical suburbanite fears about crime and peril, since we live in a city with a lot of poverty, though our particular neighborhood is middle-to-upper class. The local newspaper reports a lot of crime news, so despite the fact that there are a lot of nice areas here, to people who don't come into the city the whole thing is perceived as a war zone.

Overall, I think the judgment is misplaced and can be chalked up to equal doses of good intentions and misinformation.

[afreeman85]

Another Chicagoan here. I feel that one can definitely live in Chicago in a very Mustachian manner with children. My wife and I have been married for 3 years and will probably have children within the next 4 years or so. Let me address the major gripes.

Housing: Yes, housing can be expensive, but this is not a given. One option that many mustachians can get behind is rental property. Chicago's great residential neighborhoods are chalk full of 2 and 3 flats that are wonderful options to be live in owners/landlords. My wife and I currently live in a condo, but are saving to be able to make a downpayment for a building like that for when we have children. These buildings usually have a small yard and a garage on the alley behind the buildings. The great part about the garages is that it can be an extra stream of income since parking is so desirable. You can either get a premium on your units if there is parking, use the spot yourself, or rent it out on its own.

Other costs of living (food, entertainment, etc.): This is where I think people have the biggest misconception about major cities. The earlier poster who mentioned the great ethnic food got bashed a little bit because eating out is so anti-mustachian, however, in Chicago at least, great ethnic food is usually a FRACTION of the cost of trendier restaurants and even fast casual type places (Chipotle etc.) and many of them are BYOB. This is a fantastic option to be social with those friends that always want to go out to dinner or drinks. My wife and I always steer the dinner plans to one of these ethnic restaurants and bring our own wine/beer, and take any leftovers...which we usually have, since portions are usually great. We also have some friends that don't want their own leftovers...guess what? We take those too and viola, we have lunch for almost an entire week. There are also a TON of free things to do in the city: Parks, Classes, Art Galleries, Museums, and not mention an amazing lakefront. The outdoor beauty of southern Wisconsin and Western Michigan are also short day trips away.

Schools: Another bit a a misnomer, but a legitimate concern for parents. This is extremely dependent on the neighborhood. In Chicago though, there are many very good neighborhood schools and plenty of public magnet programs, gifted programs, arts programs, etc. I have worked in 2 different schools in Chicago (Charter Schools, though no longer in that field) and my wife works in Chicago Public Schools. The schools I worked in and that my wife worked in were very diverse, had a lot of students from very low income families and also did not have great test scores...and I would have sent my own children to them in a heartbeat. Just because the school does not test through the roof, does not mean that the instruction is poor. This is just an area that parents have to be informed on and be proactive.

Transportation:  One interesting point brought up, is that public transportation can be expensive. This is very true if you are using it daily and also own a car. That said, Chicago is a fairly bike friendly city, and walkability is also huge. Within half a mile from my condo are 7 parks, 2 standard grocery stores and countless ethnic grocery stores, a hardware store, an (subway)EL line that goes to the airport, 4 very useful bus routes, etc. Also, the person who said it would cost $2 in gas to get the airport...here in Illinois there are expensive tolls you would pay both ways that would negate the savings of taking the train. The train is $2.25 to get to the airport and $5 back into the city, so I would say the train saves money and I can read my book or the MMM blog on my way to and from the airport.

Other Benefits: I do think their is a social benefit to children to be exposed to all types of people and while I am sure their are suburban areas that do provide this, that is often not the case (I grew up in a lovely extremely homogeneous suburb about 1 hr west of Chicago). I think this is a social benefit for the child as well as society as a whole. And though Chicago is extremely segregated (which I could write an even longer post on), there is much day to day interaction with all different types of people within the city.


So, do I think living in a big city saves money? Probably not, but also don't think it costs more money either.

Would love to hear any comments on the above

[iris lily]

Eric Brende, author of Better Off: Flipping the Switch on Technology    http://www.amazon.com/Better-Off-Flipping-Switch-Technology/dp/product-description/0060570059 lives in the city of St. Louis a few blocks from me. He and his wife are raising children in an urban core without a car. They walk and bike most places, and I suppose that they take the bus when necessary.

Eric is an M.I.T. graduate who, after living for a year in an Amish-like community, became enamored of life with minimal technology. While that doesn't necessarily translate to urban living, that kind of simple living IS well supported in a city with plenty of amenities.

I don't know him well and am not sure of all of the things that he and his wife do to earn income, but he doesn't have a traditional 9 - 5 job, that I know. For a while he had a rickshaw business and she made soaps. His book is 10 years old now and it would be nice to get caught up on his current thoughts, but since he's low-tech he doesn't have internet at home.

This is from a recent CNN interview: http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/innovation/06/22/amish.tech.brende/

CNN: Did you take any of the Amish attitudes about tech and apply them to your life in now in St. Louis?

Brende: We don't own a car for all the reasons the Amish don't own a car. And plus cars are expensive and bad for the environment. I don't like the idea of being on the rabbit wheel where I'm driving to work to earn money so I can afford to drive to work. Bicycles are almost free by comparison.

We have a phone. But we don't have Internet access at our house. We don't have a microwave oven. We only have a half-size refrigerator.

[alice76]

My husband and I are raising our son (and possibly one more child) in NYC, and, yes, we are saving money.  In a typically lower paying profession (education and science), our combined salary is low six figures, yet we are living a Mustachian lifestyle.  No car, walkable access to jobs, school, and Central Park. We take advantage of our Natural History membership like it's nobody's business and do tons of free activities like concerts, movies, cultural festivals, playgrounds, and hikes. The public library here is great and has free programming at the 3 branches that are walkable from our apartment.

Possible holes in my argument? We were lucky (ahem, smart?) to negotiate a below market rent in 2009 for our 850 sq. ft. apartment. While the NYC public school system is hard to navigate, we have high quality public schooling options K-12 in our neighborhood. We pay NY State income tax plus a "city tax."  While there are plenty of folks here who are the antithesis of Mustachian, it is the culture to live in small apartments and walk/bike/take public transportation.