Big house in the country or small flat in the city...

[frasier]

...when the flat in the city means I will see my son awake during the week.

Commuting from out of town means we have a great lifestyle in a gorgeous house... at weekends. During the week I am up at 6.30am to catch the train to work and back at 8.00pm or even later when my son is in bed. So I don't get to see him awake much.

In the city I don't need to leave the flat until 9.00am so could take my son to school, and will be home at 6.30pm in time for a game before bedtime. But small flat. No playroom, no garden.

Schools are equal, living costs work out about the same (city more expensive but no commuting costs). Countryside is healthier, son has plenty of room to roam around, can just open the back door and be outside and ride his bike. City is easier (portered flat, everything taken care of from recycling to deliveries to cleaning) but a shoebox.

I want the best for my son. WWYD?

How old is your son?
Having lived in both as a child I preferred the country and that’s where I’ve chosen to stay. Obviously I was young though and did not consider the needs of my parents. I was too busy exploring.

City IMO. Quality time with a parent > fresh air and trees for me. Plus there are lots of wonderful parks and museums in cities. You can take a day trip to the countryside at weekends.

I hear you OP

I think in reality the large country house is better for you....but possibly not for DC.

and you have to think where they will get more benefit.

re waste of space, if it makes you feel any better, we have a bathroom that's got a bunch of wasted space in it. Honestly, if I could put in sofa...!!!

I'd personally prefer to be a bit further out in an ordinary house (I used to live in zone 5/6 and liked it) so some commuting and still see child but a house with garden and easy escape to the country than a flat with a pool and all the mod cons further in.

However the flat option doesn't sound that bad.

The choice isn't that, though. It's whether your child should see you in the week or not. Clearly he needs that, so you have to live wherever you can to facilitate it.

I don't mean to be harsh, but what's the point of even having a kid if you don't get to see it apart from when you are knackered on weekends?

Millions of children are raised in inner cities and cope fine. I suggest you follow their example and enjoy life.

Son going to be Year 2 in Sept. this year.

We've had this dilemma. We have 2 bed house with 2 dd and looked at moving further out of London but then dh would lose out seeing dc in the morning (currently does CM drop off) and is home just after tea and does bed time.

He 100% didn't want to give that up and I'm fine with that. We are lucky that it's a big 2 bed and we are end terrace so have a slightly bigger back garden then our neighbours.

Can you look at small house as opposed to flat in zone 2 for example?

ShotsFired Exactly why I'm posting. However, nearly 50% of the families in my son's class do just that, or have a parent working overseas during the week, or are planning to board when they are older, and are fine. It's just a different lifestyle.

When my son was born I was working overseas and he came everywhere. He was the most travelled toddler! But now it's school years it's changed of course.

It’s also the grind of the commute for you which would take its toll, I’d try to avoid that

Better to see your ds than not, so go for that

A small house in a zone further out must be doable, can you say your budget and where you need to get to?

We have a 2 bed flat in central London (zone 1) and we love the city centre lifestyle. It's not for everyone but DH has a 20-30 minute bus commute and gets to see DCs for a decent amount of time every day. It's more interesting for me as I like being able to get to all the amenities and cultural attractions (I'm a real gallery/theatre buff). We have no garden though and we rarely get out to the countryside (we'd rather go to parks and museums in London - the trains make it fairly easy to get to the country if we wanted to). I'd love more storage space and an actual home office which we could get if we moved further out (not even out of London, but to zone 3/4) but the convenience of living here is not worth the move. We don't have to worry about things like recycling restrictions and we can get anything delivered here, and the maintenance and ongoing utility bills are very low compared to having a big house. We don't even own a car as it's easier to get by with Uber and the odd car sharing service (but generally we use public transport to get everywhere).

As the partner who wfh/sahp in our relationship, it's not just about seeing your DS during the week but also your partner. I think our relationship would really suffer if he had to get home so late and start his commute so early - we'd have barely any time to chat about the day/organise stuff for the week/have sex.

GreenSeededGrape We looked at a few mews places, and swapping like for like moneywise, we could gain an extra room but lose the swimming pool/secure car park space/24 hour security.

See there again, the security. City isn't exactly the safest place these days...

darkow Yes, maintenance costs in the city are low for us too, and as you say, the recycling and deliveries and everything is done for you.

Do we live in the same building?!

I think city flat in termtime. Decamp to the country in the longer holidays. Would that work?

There’s flats and flats though, and I don’t think you’re describing a shoe box. I have a feeling your flat has more space than a lot of houses.

Definitely stay put for now. The big country house can be something for the future.

I meant go for the flat, think I’ve misunderstood where you are now

ThroughThickAndThin01 That would be ideal if we could afford/rent a place. Will look into the costs.

City for now, country for when older. I live in London, which for the most part I like, but sometimes I look at lovely big houses in the country and think about the possibilities. However, my DH would never get to see the kids and he’d hate a long commute (fair enough), so here we will stay.

City because seeing your parent is more important than riding a bike or having a garden. And a pool is an excellent trade off there.

Also you'll be less tired and more engaged at weekends.

When H was commuting 3 hrs a day (driving so possibly more tiring than train) he didn't have any interest in going anywhere at weekends.

AnachronisticCorpse We're both at the moment, that is why it's confusing! Like many "London parents" we've rented in the countryside to try it out but haven't sold city place yet.

Santasbigredbobblehat We can't believe what we could buy for the money we'd get for our two bedroomed flat. Oh well, maybe when son is at senior school or left home!

City. Playrooms aren't necessary, toys can go in bedrooms. You might not have a garden but there's parks, zoos, museums, theatre.

I would definitely say city. You get to spend more time with your son and I am sure there are far more things to do in the city than in the country especially if you are talking about London.

I was under the impression that the majority parents moved out of the city when they had children. They don't! Of the ones that have done it in DS's class, and there are quite a few, most are renting but talking about going back to the city. Various reasons but no one seems to have the worries I do though.

City. I grew up in the country and especially disliked the sense of isolation and relying on lifts from parents in the teenage years. (We had no bus service.) You can travel all over during holidays and weekends and it will more than compensate for living in the country imo.