We’re looking at moving and I’d really appreciate views from people who are a bit further down the road with children.
We’re hoping to have a baby soon and, if we move, I really don’t want to move again in five or ten years. I’m trying to think about what works not just with a baby, but with a 7-year-old and then a 15-year-old.
We currently live very centrally in a small historic city and love being able to walk to shops, cafés, the gym, restaurants etc.
The downside is ultimately a lack of space and privacy. And although it’s a lovely cathedral city with low crime, I do also find myself wondering what city life is like once you have teenagers and worrying about them falling in with the wrong crowd.
So we want more space, privacy and garden, but I’m questioning how much we actually need and what the best compromise is. I really don’t want to solve one problem only to create another that grates on me for the next 20 years.
We’ve narrowed it down to roughly these options:
A – lovely period house in the city
Large four-storey detached house at the top of a hill, with roughly a third of an acre. Very pretty, on a peaceful leafy road, but still only about a five-minute walk into the city centre.
The house is already beautifully done and there’s plenty of space inside for a family. The garden is perfectly decent, but does look a little small in relation to the size of the house once the driveway and garage are taken into account.
This feels like the safest all-round option. A baby would have a quiet home and garden, younger children would have enough outside space, and teenagers could walk into town, see friends, go to the gym, use the station etc without us driving them everywhere.
The big downside is that it really is pushing the budget to the absolute maximum and probably slightly beyond where I’d ideally like to be.
B – modern house in a field just outside the city
Large single-storey house, roughly the same size as A, but with enormous rooms and a few acres around it.
It probably looks the easiest house of the lot with a baby: no stairs, huge kitchen/living space, loads of privacy and practically unlimited room for football goals, trampoline, bikes, dogs etc.
It isn’t walkable into the city, well it would be an 60min walk, although teenagers could potentially cycle in.
One thing that slightly bothers me is the access. Although the house itself sits in a field, you have to drive through a housing estate and effectively go around the houses to reach it, so it doesn’t feel quite as effortlessly rural as you might expect.
I also wonder whether, over the next 20–30 years, the city could expand and some of the surrounding fields eventually be built on.
C – Victorian country house near a small market town
This is the biggest house, around 30% larger than A and B, with a similar amount of land to B but more going on: woodland, outdoor pool, outbuildings and mature grounds.
Unlike A and B it needs refurbishment, although it is perfectly liveable now.
For younger children it seems almost ridiculously good. They could have the sort of childhood with woods, dens, pool, bikes, football, treehouses etc, and there would be loads of room for friends to come over.
The compromise is location. It’s near a very small market town rather than a city, and there isn’t a safe walking route from the house into town.
It would only be about a five-minute drive to drop them into town and get home again, so not exactly a hardship, but I wonder whether we’d eventually become permanent taxi drivers. Although I’m not sure there is that much for teenagers to do there.
On the other hand, while they’re younger, there’s something quite appealing about a small local school and feeling part of a smaller community.
D – smaller period house in a very desirable residential part of the city
Great private-road location with a good garden and everything still walkable, although it’s more like 15 minutes into the centre rather than five.
It’s also in the best school catchment area, although the schools for the other options are perfectly good too.
The downside for me is the house itself. The internal layout is quite old-fashioned and it has lots of bedrooms rather than fewer, really generous rooms, which is what I prefer.
My instinct is that A probably works best overall from baby through to teenager, but the price is uncomfortable and the garden isn’t that big.
B seems fantastic for babies and younger children and has the easiest, most modern house, but I’m not sure whether the location would eventually annoy me.
C probably offers the most amazing childhood when they’re young, but I wonder whether a small market town and having to drive everywhere becomes a disadvantage as they get older.
D is probably the sensible city option and has the strongest school catchment, but I don’t like the house itself as much.
I grew up in a village of about 3,000 people, so I’m conscious that may be clouding my judgement. I remember the advantages of having space and a small community, but perhaps I’m underestimating how valuable independence becomes for teenagers.
For those who chose a house with a decent plot or a few acres when your children were small: did they genuinely make use of it as they grew up, or did the novelty wear off and you were left maintaining a lot of grass?
And for those with teenagers now, how important has it been for them to be able to walk or cycle independently to friends, shops, school, gym, station etc?
Would you prioritise more space and privacy while they’re young, or walkability and independence as they get older?
if you got to the end you deserve a coffee and cake from me! Thank you