We are saving up for a house deposit and are wavering between two locations.
We currently rent in a suburb of a major city. Great transport links - I can get drive or get tram or bus to work and into the city so have lots of flexibility. I have a thirty min commute to work by car. City vibe but not really important to us as we're nature lovers anyway.
However we are both from a beautiful valley about 15 miles away (15 mins down motorway). Our family are still there and we love walking there so I'd say we currently go there about 4-5 days per week anyway. As it's post-industrial and a little run down, the houses are also £30-£50k cheaper. There's also no train connection.
We're leaning towards the latter, however I'm a bit worried about the commute and being at the mercy of needing a car. Currently I work in a suburb location with parking, but if I ever get a job in the city centre itself, I might find myself having to drive into the centre (nightmare) and pay city centre parking costs, or drive to the outskirts and then somehow switch to public transport. Not to mention the increased possibility of traffic jams from adding another 15 miles of motorway to my commute.
Has anyone had this dilemma - convenience of city living versus lower price/pleasantness of rural living?