December 14, 2004

• I would say (a), but that's because I grew up in (c) and am still bitter at how sheltered my life was. Ultimately it depends on the family and priorities, I suppose.
• There are a lot of modifiers to that question, depending on what you want for your family. Assuming, however, that you want to maximize your family's happiness and minimize unhappiness, I think you'd still pick b. By family, I assume you are thinking mom, dad, and kids. AS a dad, the welfare of your wife and children is your foremost concern. The basic method for ensuring this is three-fold: proximity to good paying job, diverse and quality goods and services to spend that money on, and safe and secure household location. Suburbs, imo, best meet all three of these. First, good paying job: while one can certainly find quality work in any of the three, the concentration of jobs with potential for increasing pay, benefits, advancement, etc is in the cities. Suburbs by their nature ring cities, and typically provide a workable commute. Similarly, where people concentrate, so do those merchants and service providers who supply and service those people. More people means more diverse goods and services, and where many providers congregate, competition contributes to lower prices and higher quality throughout. That side, why not just live in the city? In short: crime. If we, for the sake of argument, assume that a relatively set percentage of the population commits crimes, then the higher concentrations of people in the city would thus provide greater numerical amounts of criminals. However, criminals are disproportionately affective, meaning they tend to affect more people than they number (example: ten good men may build a garage, but only one is required to burn it down). Therefore, the safest region for locating one's home would, seemingly, be a rural area. However, doing so precludes taking advantage of city jobs/goods/services, so taking the middle course and locating one's home in a suburb provides a good level of safety while allowing access to the provisions of the city.
• d. Small city/college town? Job opportunities, art and theatre to "culture" your kids, less crime than a big city, more diversity than the suburbs.
• Growing up, my family moved around a lot, and I experienced all three. From a kid's perspective, I liked C the best, and B the least. From an adult's perspective, I like the D option mentioned by smallish bear.
• I'd say wherever Mum and Dad are happiest is best
• either A, B, or C, just so it's in the american midwest. nicest people, best cost of living, great core values for kids. (they don't call it the "midwestern work ethic" for nothing)
• I grew up in B, and vowed not to live my adult life that way. I would be equally at home in A or C, but the city is no place to raise kids, so mine are being raised in C (with a D just down the road).
• What smallish bear said. When the day finally comes that this monkey opts to reproduce, it'll definitely be in an area where there are plenty of trees and open fields and such for the little ones to cavort in. Plus, they'll be in for regular trips to museums and cultural institutions that are anywhere within driving range. While living in or near the city does bring one closer to high-paying jobs, it's also going to be someplace where the cost of living is very high as well. Any advantage you get as far as higher pay may go straight back out the window when you have to pay for higher housing costs, taxes, and generally more expensive everything. (This comes from an NYCer who grew up in NJ just outside Manhattan.)
• This is a completely emotional decision and I wouldn't advise against trying to make it logically. People raise kids in all sorts of places without problem - the question is, what kind of a life do you want to live? Don't settle for something less than what you want - live where you want! You only get one chance...
• We're in B, and I wish we were in A. It's great for kids though: we have a big park two minutes' walk from home, a kindergarten five doors down, a dozen kids around my son's age on the same street. I'd like to live nearer the city for purely selfish reasons, but it's not a long drive/bus trip. And my biggest issue with raising kids in a city is the traffic. A friend and her daughter live on the edge of downtown and they have drunken freaks peeing in their garden and peeking in the windows in the middle of the night. Plus in the suburbs we can have a bigger chunk of land to play on/with. When we move next, it'll hopefully be to somewhere about halfway between where we live now and the city. Or to the very outskirts to a stereotypical kiwi "lifestyle block" where we can have a dozen animals and the kids can run free.
• It really, really doesn't matter. The quality of your kids will be a result of the quality of your character. I would, however, recommend a small city - one that's urban enough to be considered urban but not where everything is impersonal (Manhatten, Chicago). Some parts of San Fransisco, or Cambridge MA, or other such places, but also near nature.
• I'm also in the smaller city camp. I grew up in a small university town (25,000 or so) that was close to wide open rural areas and within a reasonable distance from a handful of major cities. I was able to walk everywhere or ride a bike (ie mom and dad weren't obligated to drive me everywhere), we had neighbors close if we needed help, and it didn't take too much effort to get out in the woods or the urban jungle. as a teenager there was enough going on that I didn't engage in the level of drunken reckless behavior that my suburban and rural counterparts did :) I think it all comes down to where you really want to live, though. there are advantages to raising a family in any setting, and basically it's up to you to instill what values you want your kids to have.
• I move a lot, always have, and I've experienced A, B, C and D as a kid and as a parent. (caveat: I actually have hardly explored the B option as a parent, only for one miserable year) and I have to say that D has worked by far the best for me and the kids. A is a little too scary; it's tough for them and you not being able to shoo them outside. B is just, well, just - okay, it's the suburbs: I hate it. And single moms still don't fit in, at least not in the one I tried. C is great in some ways but oddly it's kind of like A in that letting the kids outside is problematic: there aren't any other kids around to play with. Also, you have to drive everywhere, and after 3 years of commuting 60 miles a day, putting my kindergartener on a bus for a 45 minute commute. . . we were living in the car, and it got old. Now I live in Asheville, NC, about 70,000 people and although there are real other issues (no jobs or very low paying jobs, very high cost of living, tourist/retiree mecca) I must say it has been a great place for the kids. I live near downtown, have no qualms about chasing kids outside to the yard or neighborhood, there are other kids everywhere, they can walk & bike & see their friends, the schools are mostly great, and there is tons of stuff for all ages going on all the time - it's a great place for us. Nobody is sacrificing anything for anyone else, and I think that's ideal. Now don't move here. No, I'm sorry, you can't. I refuse to be responsible for one more unemployed hipster moving here.
• Not something anyone else can answer for you. Further, circumstances may vary for a family, too, so what was right five or ten years ago isn't necessarily what's right today. Me, I was moved around far too frequently as a kid to think well of children having to adapt frequently to new schools, neighborhoods, sets of friends, new local history, etc. Think it's easier for a youngster to make sense of the world with a more stable background.
• Find a community to move into. Anywhere you choose is going to be much nicer (and safer) if you like and know the people around you. I've found that suburbs suck in terms of getting that community feel. And... Won't somebody please think of the children? I mean that in the 'children are our future' sort of way. Your kids will inherit this earth from you, and city/suburb/rural living all have different impacts on the environment. Suburbs, where I am stuck until I get a job, are nice and safe, but entail lots of driving (pollution and foreign oil dependence). Not to mention, the local places to shop are all Wal-Mart type places that ship (more pollution/oil) tons of goods from overseas, where envronmental and labor standards are nil. When I lived in San Francisco proper, I found that I rarely had to drive and had very many low-environmental-impact options while shopping. I realize that your personal impact on the planet may seem low on the list compared to things like the quality of schools for your children, and a location close to family/shopping/work/whatever, but there's certainly no harm in taking it into consideration in your move. Because your children, and theirs and so on, really will be fixing our mistakes down the road.
• There is no right answer. It depends too much on locale and you usually don't get too choose the region where you have to live, either because of family or work concerns. IMO, city is always best, because you can visit the country but you can't really experience what a cosmopolitan lifestyle offers without living there. But what if the nearby cities are blighted hell-holes, or concrete wastelands devoid of life? So you move to the country so at least you have the outdoors and charm, but then you find out the only school within hours is worthless and everyone in your area is a mouthbreathing inbred rather than a educated farmer. Finally you've got the suburban purgatory. Last refuge of the fearful and unimaginative, or minor oasis in between yawning chasms of despair, if both of the above options crap out. I will say that choosing a place to live in a city can take great care. A few blocks in one direction or the other can make all the difference in the neighborhood.
• Wherever will inspire your kids to move the hell out ASAP. No, just kidding. I'd have to say rural area just outside a medium to smallish city. The advantage of peace and quiet outweighs the niftiness of access to urban services. Plus, if the city grows, then your property becomes more valuable.
• I don't have an answer for this, because I'm still trying to work this out myself. We (wife+son+me) live in A (North Beach, SF) and love much of what it offers, but we live financial-aid/pay check to check. I grew up in multiple Bs and I refuse to subject my kids to that (there is a reason for high teen suicide rates in the s'burbs.) C seems tempting to my farmer/self-suficient daydreams, but I'm going to school for acupuncture and I'm not sure if I can support the family doing that in the country. D seems like a great option, but I'm afraid of finding it a poor substitute for an A.
• Is crime really higher in the city? In the Greater Toronto Area, crime is higher in the suburbs than downtown - I grew up in the suburbs, and they are not safer (more property crime, actually, because of lack of eyes on the street). Maybe this is a Canadian thing (we don't really get poverty stricken inner cities the same way the US does), but I have to wonder how much of the truism city=crime is a suburban myth? There are also many different areas in a city - one might find there are very good urban areas as well as bad ones (Rosedale versus St Jamestown - within two blocks of each other), as well as good cities and worse cities. Also, you have to think about crime per capita - yes, more people will mean likely more crime per acre, but do the chances of it happening to you increase, when there are also more potential victims? It really does matter what kind of city/suburb/rural area you are looking at. In Toronto, the very urban Annex neighbourhood (immediately west of downtown) is safe, has very good neighbourhood relations, several large parks and playgrounds, with tons of kids around. You can easily shoo your kids outside. But the St Jamestown area (immediately east) is not at all like that - many highrise buildings, few good parks - that would not be a good place with kids. The suburbs have just as much diversity: I grew up in the suburbs - I lived in an apartment building, but it backed immediately onto a school and several attached parks, which was amazing for me as a kid. My mother now lives in a smaller building not far away, but has no safe parks to let my niece play in - the building is surrounded by parking lots (not grass as our old one was) and the only park is across a very busy and dangerous road. This is in the same suburb, on the same road, about thirty minutes walk away from each other. All around Toronto are good and bad and mediocre suburbs, just as downtown there are better and worse neigbourhoods. Rural living is similarly very different depending on where you live and who you are. If you live in the heart of a small town, you might love it. Or you might love living in the middle of nowhere, especially if you have lots of family or friends around. As for kids - it's mixed. I loved being in the country when I was 8-12, and would have gone crazy when I was 13-18. My friend from a tiny village north of Barrie said that there was only two things to do there: drink, and get girls pregnant. At the time, when he was 16, he was living alone in Toronto (with his parents' permission) so that he could attend our arts highschool. But I don't know how to drive, so anywhere not within a good public transit system would be like being under house arrest, so my decision has been made. Then again, even if I knew how to drive, I have all the same concerns yentruoc, but you can add the fact that I think that new subdivisions are terribly wasteful of precious undeveloped land - in the Greater Toronto Area, we have already paved over too much of the best farmland in Canada. We don't need to ruin any more, just because I want a few hundred more feet of floorspace. I will just buy furniture at IKEA instead.
• The best place to raise a family is Reno, Nevada.
• Reno's a great place to raise a family...or a plant.
• smallish bear is right, I think. jb -- my wife tells me that St. Jamestown, when it was first built, was considered the place to live and only became a problem when the owners stopped maintaining the buildings and people realized that living in highrises is disgusting. And, SideDish, I disdagree. I can't think of a worse place to raise a family than anywhere in the U.S. right now. Militaristic, bigoted christian zealots are only becoming more common there, which is why my family left for far saner territory.
• Small towns don't mean automatic low crime. When there's nothing else to do, kids will sniff glue, smoke crack and drink beer. Well, they do in my small lumber town -- more crime than in most Montreal neighborhoods.
• Same thing with suburbs, esp. wrt to public transit. To get to Montreal from the south shore, you have to pass through the Longueuil station. Not a very pleasant experience.
• Or else maybe Lompoc, California. Lompoc may be best.
• I'm with Richer. I grew up in a small town / suburb of a small city and while my early childhood was full of idyllic stories of making snow caves, playing in haylofts, cross-country skiing, games of capture the flag in the local forest etc, by highschool the boredom was leading friends to smoke crack, attempt suicide, etc etc. I think it's easier to grow up well-adjusted in a city - there's less pressure to conform since you can always find a group that meshes with your personality... and there are a million alternatives to sex and drugs as an outlet to youthful energy.
• And, SideDish, I disdagree. I can't think of a worse place to raise a family than anywhere in the U.S. right now. Militaristic, bigoted christian zealots are only becoming more common there, which is why my family left for far saner territory. Please. Come visit me in West LA sometime.
• Not only does it depend on what you and the spouse will get out of wherever you end up, it also depends on what stage your family is in. What might be an idyllic location for a three-year-old will no doubt be "the pit where we drink heavily" by the time they're fifteen. My current theory is move once, from a small city / old suburb to a large city. That way you don't have to worry as much about the little tykes being run over by New York cabs, nor do you have to worry about them joining the local militia / creepy trenchcoat mafia gunplay club later in life. Also, it'll be that much more exposure for the kids, giving them a better idea of where they'll want to live when the time comes.
• Oh, and a nice college town is a great substitute for a small city, so long as you don't live too close to the local fauna (and flora—we are talking about student housing here). Better that you benefit indirectly from higher education through drama productions and cooler record stores than directly through drunken rampages.
• Thanks for the invitation, drjimmy, but I doubt I'll ever set foot in the U.S. again. Though it would be fun to see the reaction of the border drones to the Cuban stamp on my passport....

• We're in B, and I wish we were in A. It's great for kids though:

  Move there when they're teens. Seriously. Friend o' mine reckoned the suburbs were great when his daughters were kids, but he was happy he moved to the city fringe (Hataitai, for those who know Wellington) when they were teens. Because they were going to want to go into town on the weekend, anyway, and this meant home was walking/taxi/bus distance home, rather than "friends with cars" and other disasters waiting to happen.
• I've lived semi-urban, suburban, and now semi-rural/suburban. The answer -- hands-down, unequivocally, no-shit -- is semi-rural/suburban. After living in a modest-size community in Montana for just over 2 years now, there is NOTHING that would ever make me move the family to a larger community/city.
• You have children? Then you're already in over head.
• That's your head, of course. I'm assuming you are taller than your kids.
• coppermac - I've heard that too, about St Jamestown. Highrise living does work for some childless couples, but generally is terrible for children and doesn't promote good neighbourliness. You have no connection to the people who live with you; they are strangers in the elevator. (I say this from my experience living in high-rises.) There is a right and a wrong way to do urban - lowrise urban living can be terrific. My friends who grew up downtown in low-rise areas (Annex, Beaches, Danforth, even Parkdale) thought it was great as kids and as teenagers. Whereas I liked the suburbs as a kid, but much, much less as a teenager. I was just lucky that I was within the reach of public transit (northern Etobicoke) to downtown (where I went to school, the reference library, the sci-fi bookshop, etc.)
• Best place to raise a family: The suburbs... of Ashgabat, Turkmenistan.