Should I move out of the city? (Newton, Arlington: house prices, prices)

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by r_p

It is possible in suburbs too but takes more effort.

Usually the opposite.

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by massnative71

Usually the opposite.

I don't know about that. Neither option is going to drastically limit options for your kids to meet other kids, but the very nature of the city (people relying more on public places vs. private yards for recreation) makes it simpler to just be somewhere with other kids.

I dated someone with 2 kids in the 'burbs and it took some effort to coordinate meetups outside of school/sports. We either had to drive somewhere like a playground, trampoline park, etc., or the "host" family had to prepare for company which was an endeavor in and of itself. Not awful, but it took some planning. Our neighbors in Somerville had 2 kids and they just walked 2 blocks over to the playground (there are a million of them all over town). Sometimes they'd coordinate with friends, often they'd just play with whoever was there. And because it's the city and the parks/playgrounds are the places to get outside and play, there's no pressure to have people over. There are generally more people to play with at the playgrounds as a result (we were often alone for much of the time at the handful of playgrounds we'd visit outside of the city) since hanging in the backyard isn't really a big thing. We'd almost always stop by a Boston playground after the Museum of Science, Aquarium, Children's Museum, etc. because the kids really liked that there were so many other kids in the city playgrounds and parks.

But generally speaking, the majority of people who have kids tend to want a single family outside of the city if it's an option (and with the OP's budget, it is). Without knowing more about the OP, it's the safer guess that they'd prefer that type of environment if kids are on the horizon. I think you really have to prefer living in the city in order to choose to do it with kids. I'm in this camp, but I'm not getting that impression from the OP's post. A place like Arlington, parts of Somerville, Newton, Hyde Park, etc. might function as a sort of in-between option.

[brightdoglover]

The few folks I know who had kids did leave the city. I remember one friend dragging a stroller up and down and up and down the stairs in their very nice South End condo. Money was no object for them, but they moved to Pittsfield (family) and contributed a great deal to the community there is school involvement and job creation. (If you lived at ground level in the South End, no stairs, there is the issue of safety, iron bars on windows, etc.

Suburbs don't have to mean a soulless house with no sidewalks and huge yards. There are all kinds of suburban lives. (Disclaimer- I am not a parent but I like a lot of them!)

[BostonMike7]

In a pre-covid world, never found it difficult at all to coordinate kid play-dates with others while out in the suburbs. As the kids got older and more families with kids moved into the neighborhood, it was nice to just have the kids all hang out with each other in the neighborhood. There are all kinds of neighborhoods in the suburbs. Ours has enough privacy, but you can also walk over and have a conversation with your neighbor, or have the kids go play with other kids in the neighborhood and be less worried about them getting hit by a car because there's virtually no vehicle traffic. At the same time, the proximity to 128 meant you had tons of activities within a 10-15 min drive. Skyzone, In the Game, Dave and Busters, parks, indoor craft activies, etc etc.

I'm not knocking city life with kids at all, but I don't think there's every been a time I've thought to myself "This would be so much easier if I was in a city".

At the same time, different strokes for different folks. If you like the city, good for you. I can certainly understand the draw and allure of city living. It's just not for me anymore.

[r_p]

Originally Posted by lrfox

I dated someone with 2 kids in the 'burbs and it took some effort to coordinate meetups outside of school/sports. We either had to drive somewhere like a playground, trampoline park, etc., or the "host" family had to prepare for company which was an endeavor in and of itself. Not awful, but it took some planning. Our neighbors in Somerville had 2 kids and they just walked 2 blocks over to the playground (there are a million of them all over town). Sometimes they'd coordinate with friends, often they'd just play with whoever was there. And because it's the city and the parks/playgrounds are the places to get outside and play, there's no pressure to have people over. There are generally more people to play with at the playgrounds as a result (we were often alone for much of the time at the handful of playgrounds we'd visit outside of the city) since hanging in the backyard isn't really a big thing. We'd almost always stop by a Boston playground after the Museum of Science, Aquarium, Children's Museum, etc. because the kids really liked that there were so many other kids in the city playgrounds and parks.

My kids were born while I was academia and lived in subsidized university/staff housing which was situated in very safe/secluded and upscale neighborhood. Our kids were out all the time with other kids and there were lots of them because most of the staff comprised of married post-docs/phd students, residents, assistant profs etc. You didn't even have to watch over as there was always someone else (other parents or visiting grand-parents etc.) watching. It was almost like free range parenting. The university obviously didn't want folks to get too comfortable so there was a hard 7-8 year limit as to how long one can rent and live there. I really do miss that time. Money was tight but the quality of life was so much better.

[bohemka]

In response to the OP, I don't see any reason to leave the Back Bay except for the rent vs. equity argument. Families of all sizes find ways to make all sorts of spaces work, and there are likely just as many if not more families that would swap their suburban house for your Back Bay condo. I imagine most wouldn't want to return to tenant status, though.

You have to balance all the rest, of course. What will your commute look like down the road (no pun intended), is this the long-term city/job? All of that and more.

We moved our oldest around a bit (would have been more if I could have convinced my wife), and it sounds cold, but it doesn't really matter where you are until your kids hit kindergarten (five years old). That's when community events, activities, sports, everything clicks into gear. You can obviously move without too much concern after that, of course, but definitely don't see a reason to remain in one place—if it's strictly for a child—before they're five (unless you want to live it to see if it's the right spot).

If your budget is $800-$900k, I would think investing in a property that leads to equity would be preferable to paying Back Bay rental rates (from an investment/financial standpoint), but there's a massive tradeoff. I'd absolutely love to pop out my door and have fun along Comm Ave and in Public Garden with my kids, not to mention all that appeals to adults that no suburb can touch.

[MGDuece]

Absolutely Move! Boston is a problem. Pick a subject drugs, crime, overcrowding, expensive, stress. Pick a community like Newburyport or West Newbury, Rowley, Boxford. Great school system space, peaceful. Easy commute to Boston. Look at towns on Zillow for RE prices. Down fall to all of this your still in Taxachusetts! I've been here my entire life and also own property in Naples, FL. We are gone from this poorly run and terrible politics State.

[porterhouse]

Originally Posted by MGDuece

Pick a community like Newburyport or West Newbury, Rowley, Boxford. Great school system...

great might be a bit strong

[chicagoliz]

It is totally dependent on what you and your husband like. I love cities, and if I lived in Back Bay, I'd live there as long as I could. Lots of people raise children in cities. There is no reason why you MUST move to the suburbs just because you have kids.

If you WANT the suburbs, then that's a different story. Then you should move.

[id77]

Originally Posted by sawyer2

I wouldn't move out of the city now JUST because you are planning on having kids soon. For the first 18+ months they are immobile and you could live anywhere, and even beyond then. You can still take great advantage of all the city has to offer with young kids. Strollers, cribs etc of course start to eat up free space.

There are certainly other/additional drivers for moving ... want more space, tired of city life, tired of renting etc etc. Have to figure out what are the pros/cons and tipping point for your personal situation.

For what it's worth, we lived in the South End and Back Bay with kids and it was great - especially Back Bay with the esplanade, the common/public garden etc. at our doorstep. We owned in both so I understand how that would impact the decision process too Vs renting.

We moved to the 'burbs and are very happy - wouldn't go back now, but have no regrets and great memories of our time in the city with kids.

IMO no need to run for the 'burbs at the first 'lets make a baby' twinkle in the eye ....... but different strokes and all that.

I agree with a lot of this. Our daughter had her first birthday in a <700 sq. ft. condo in South End, and while it began to get tighter, it wasn't unbearable. If you have enough space for a pack-n-play and a diaper station, you'll get through it. Many condo associations will either allow you to store your stroller in the common area or have storage where you can.

The difference is we stayed. Daughter loves the myriad playgrounds (which, while the esplanade is nice, I feel the playground options in the Back Bay are fewer than in the South End). I get why some parents do go, though.