To ask which is more important to you?

[NCToday7]

Living in a home in a really lovely area with enough money after mortgage and other outgoings to save some money. Enough for one holiday a year abroad, the odd treat here and there, a monthly meal out etc., or, living in a home in an ‘ok-ish’ but much less salubrious area but with lots of money left each month for regular meals out, holidays, can buy things without really thinking and plenty in savings each month. Which would you choose?

Less nice house and more money to do holidays meals out etc. As long as the house was in an ok area with reasonable neighbours

The former. Area matters.

I'd try to find a compromise between the two. I wouldn't want to waste loads of money on multiple holidays, eating out more often than once a month and buying things without thinking; but I would like to be able to save plenty.

Depends on your age and whether this is a forever home or you’ll move again in The future. If you’re still climbing up career ladder then stretch yourselves for house in better area as you will earn more as your careers develop and eventually you will have more spare cash. House will also grow in value. If you are elderly and have peaked at work then the safer option is to go for cheaper house and enjoy yourselves more.

I think it depends on how you want your day-to-day life to be as well as long term plans. We live in a nice area with lots of shops, cafes etc nearby, 5 mins walk to a big park, 30 min commute, lots (free!) locally for kids, close to schools etc. We previously lived in a less nice area which meant we were really limited on options locally and had to drive to get places rather than walking, plus it was an hour commute. I think I’d rather have daily quality of life and fewer holidays/takeaways but not at all costs!

If you eat out loads it becomes less of a treat - same with other treats so I'd be very happy with eating out once a month. My actual answer to this though, depends on how OK the OK area is and what else you'd have to give up if you lived in the really nice place. I'd not sacrifice kids activities and the ability to socialise with friends to live somewhere great rather than somewhere OK.

I suppose we currently choose the second option. The area is nice enough (I wouldn't choose a bad area just to have more spare cash) but we could afford to move somewhere nicer. We are not moving because the kids are settled in schools and it's nice to not have to not have to think about money and we have a good size house here. I was quite poor growing up so I didn't want my kids to grow up like that if possible. Life as a teen is much easier if you have the latest phones, trainers, clothes etc. Not having to worry about bills means less stress for us all.

However, we do plan on moving to nicer rural location within 10 years.

Area for me

I'd do the former and live in a nice area. I'd personally forego the annual holidays to boost savings (but I'm a real homebody so it's not a huge sacrifice for me - I appreciate it is important to others).

Home in a nice area where you don't have to worry about your children playing outside in the street or worry about them getting home at night when they are older. Much more important than material things.

interesting
I think you actually have 2 good options there.
for most people it is house and no holidays v. house and some holidays/treats.

For me, my home matters, but the area less so.
I would hate a pokey/copromise house, but would be fine with a decent house in a less good area.
we don't have the money to eat out regularly, and I woudl love to do that, but in our case moving wouldn't make any difference!

But also, I have lived in a chocolate box village and found that I had to be a taxi 24/7 for kids. It is a rubbish place to be a teen and drug use amongst rurla teens is surprisingly high
We now live in a town, not glamorous, not a great area, but teenage kids can bus/cycle to anywhere, can meet friends, walk to scouts etc.
So people have very different ideas about what a good area is.

When I was younger the latter is what I'd have chosen. Now I'm older it has to be the former, stuff means far less to me now and the area we're living in is much more important.

I’d go for the former, we can’t currently afford any holidays so one a year sounds great to me!

Definitely less salubrious. I live in one of the less 'sought after' areas of a large city. I love it. I don't so much like the conventionality of the more sought after areas.

Lovely area

Always go for the area

Location, location, location are the three most important things about where you live

people have very different ideas about what a good area is

Definitely. To me, there's nothing 'good' about being a half hour walk from the nearest shop, 40 mins drive to the hospital, having to rely on your car and a crippling mortgage. I'm happier in a less salubrious area with a Sains Local and Co-op around the corner, great public transport (you can't predict when your car will break down), 15 mins walk to the infirmary and a bit of spare cash left over to enjoy life.