4 ms·

Only short-term. Once you factor in gas, ownership of multiple cars, etc it's cheaper to live in the city. Doubly so if your time isn't worthless (time sitting

Only short-term. Once you factor in gas, ownership of multiple cars, etc it's cheaper to live in the city. Doubly so if your time isn't worthless (time sitting in traffic is working for free)

javert 12y ago
As an American who prefers rural living, I prefer not living in a city because my time is valuable. I like being able to go from A to B at 60 miles and hour and not worry about parking. I don't like waiting for busses or subways. I think suburban living is generally going to be less time-consuming than urban living unless you're doing something dumb, like communting into Los Angles or Washington, D.C.
- jmspring 12y ago
  I'd love rural living, but I've opted for a walkable suburb on the coast. My current job allows me to work at home full time unless I am traveling, and my wife commutes but has a flexible schedule and gets to work at home regularly. There are times where the diversity of a city would be great, but I don't like the noise, traffic, or public transportation. In the bay area, BART is ok, Caltrain isn't bad, but Muni? Oy. Just coming back from a business trip to Tokyo (my first time here), I can see how public transport can be very efficient. That said, even here, I got to over hear some google employees whining about their offices being moved to an area that was mostly business park and not wanting to commute. No matter where you choose to live, there are personal choices that are part of the calculus.
- eropple 12y ago
  It doesn't sound to me like you know urban living all that well at all. In Somerville, MA, I can get anywhere I want to go--stores, work, play, downtown Boston--in thirty minutes by foot or bus or train. I do not worry about places to park, nor do I worry about traffic. I can, on the other hand, speak to suburban living being as alienating as anything I've ever encountered. Sitting in a car, alone, for an hour a day to go to and from work--time I couldn't spend doing anything of use, be it reading or working or talking to a friend--was the most soul-killing time of my life.
crimsonalucard 12y ago
It depends. I think this is true when you don't factor in cost per square footage of property. Imagine taking the immense square footage of suburban houses and plopping it in the middle of Manhattan, then living there. Unaffordable. However if living space isn't as a big of an issue, there is definitely a sweet spot where you can find smaller spaces that make living in the city cheaper then suburban life.

Only short-term. Once you factor in gas, ownership of multiple cars, etc it's cheaper to live in the city. Doubly so if your time isn't worthless (time sitting in traffic is working for free)

javert 12y ago

As an American who prefers rural living, I prefer not living in a city because my time is valuable. I like being able to go from A to B at 60 miles and hour and not worry about parking. I don't like waiting for busses or subways. I think suburban living is generally going to be less time-consuming than urban living unless you're doing something dumb, like communting into Los Angles or Washington, D.C.

jmspring 12y ago
I'd love rural living, but I've opted for a walkable suburb on the coast. My current job allows me to work at home full time unless I am traveling, and my wife commutes but has a flexible schedule and gets to work at home regularly. There are times where the diversity of a city would be great, but I don't like the noise, traffic, or public transportation. In the bay area, BART is ok, Caltrain isn't bad, but Muni? Oy. Just coming back from a business trip to Tokyo (my first time here), I can see how public transport can be very efficient. That said, even here, I got to over hear some google employees whining about their offices being moved to an area that was mostly business park and not wanting to commute. No matter where you choose to live, there are personal choices that are part of the calculus.
eropple 12y ago
It doesn't sound to me like you know urban living all that well at all. In Somerville, MA, I can get anywhere I want to go--stores, work, play, downtown Boston--in thirty minutes by foot or bus or train. I do not worry about places to park, nor do I worry about traffic. I can, on the other hand, speak to suburban living being as alienating as anything I've ever encountered. Sitting in a car, alone, for an hour a day to go to and from work--time I couldn't spend doing anything of use, be it reading or working or talking to a friend--was the most soul-killing time of my life.

crimsonalucard 12y ago

It depends. I think this is true when you don't factor in cost per square footage of property. Imagine taking the immense square footage of suburban houses and plopping it in the middle of Manhattan, then living there. Unaffordable. However if living space isn't as a big of an issue, there is definitely a sweet spot where you can find smaller spaces that make living in the city cheaper then suburban life.