There are so many confounding factors in any discussion about this, it's almost meaningless to try and draw generalizations across an age cohort without first s

There are so many confounding factors in any discussion about this, it's almost meaningless to try and draw generalizations across an age cohort without first stratifying by city. The urban design of a region dictates what "suburb" means. A New England suburb is vastly different from a Florida suburb. The zoning laws and building regulations of the past few generations dictate what older housing stock is available. In most cities this means the housing stock is overwhelmingly suburban thanks to the sprawling postwar housing policy. Today's zoning laws and regulations decide the same but for the newer and nicer end of the housing stock. Some cities have moved to more density-friendly policy for new construction, some cities are still sprawling, and California is largely frozen in amber. The composition of the housing stock as discussed above play a large part in the pricing of suburban vs urban living. Another confounding factor is what the commute looks like, which again is dictated by the past century+ of public policy. A driving commute in greater Boston is generally worse than in your average midsized American city. But rail commutes are viable in many greater Boston towns, and demand trends upwards near rail lines. Finally, as always, education is a big factor in housing for anyone with children. If all the urban schools suck I expect that pushes some families out of the city.