I've chosen to live outside of large cities, in suburban areas. I think of cities as the noisy, hectic places that I'll visit occasionally for some specific purpose, then want to leave as soon as possible. They feel like crowded, hostile places to me.

A big part of that is probably that I wasn't raised in a city, so my contact with them has been while on vacation. Living somewhere and vacationing somewhere are certainly very different experiences.

I live within walking distance of about a dozen restaurants and a bar. I've never been a nightlife guy. There are museums and concert halls 30-60 minutes from here. My home is fairly cheap for the area, and I live under 15 minutes away from work. I don't feel like I'm missing out.

So while I understand that a lot of people would like to live in a city, I don't see the attraction. I feel like the downsides outweigh the benefits.

> within walking distance of a dozen restaurants and a bar

You're not in the suburbs. At least not the kind that cityfolk say are soulless wastes. It sounds like you live in the downtown of a village or town.

When I think of the 'burbs, I think of vast expanses of asphalt where only the poorest would consider walking and labyrinth enclaves of cul-de-sacs where taking the kid to play with a neighbor requires a half-mile drive to go 500 feet as the crow flies.

> When I think of the 'burbs, I think of vast expanses of asphalt where only the poorest would consider walking and labyrinth enclaves of cul-de-sacs where taking the kid to play with a neighbor requires a half-mile drive to go 500 feet as the crow flies.

Modern design (and redesign, though that has less freedom) of low-density suburbs, while still avoiding street grids to limit residential traffic speeds, often embraces walking and bike paths that are more direct than roadways, and designs that improve transit serviceability, instead of using the branching, cul-de-sac dominated structure of, say, 1960s suburbs.

In a town, but not in its downtown. There are just enough strip malls interspersed between the tract homes to make walking possible. I'm right next to one. In one direction up the largest nearby street, there are some light commercial and industrial areas. In the other direction (albeit slightly farther, maybe a half hour's walk), is another row of stores anchored by a grocery. If I take that walk, there's a good chance that I won't meet anyone else on the sidewalk in that time.

My goal for walkable is to have a good grocery within a 5-minute walk, so that I wouldn't be annoyed if I forgot to pick something up and had to go back. I'd like a dozen good restaurants and a few bars within 10 minutes. So, probably 4x that to allow for different tastes.

Further, I want that walk to be reasonably populated all day and into the night, so I feel safe.

We've got different goals =)

Under half an hour away from work (by whatever means), somewhere I can afford to buy, quiet neighborhood, nice view, trees around, good schools, not too tightly packed, with a reputation of being safe enough that I don't have to worry if no one else is around.

Walkability is a plus, but not at the cost of other goals. If I ever want to see family or friends, a car is a given. Survival doesn't strictly require one, but it would complicate a number of things.

What is your coworkers' age range. In the past, young people would start in the city. Once they married/had children, they would move out the suburbs.

That's the trend I've noticed. Lots of 20 and 30 year old live in SF. Once the family expands, the first question is "when do we move out of the city?".

When you've got kids, things like bars and restaurants take a back seat to good schools and family-friendly neighborhoods.

Of all my coworkers with children, maybe 10% chose to stick it out in SF and they seem to bitch non-stop about the schools.

It's not predetermined that neighborhoods in the city aren't "family friendly" though, that's a choice we've made though policy.

Well, part of the family-unfriendliness is competition for cities' limited housing supply.

If a family with two adults and three children wants a 3-bedroom property, their budget depends on two adults' salaries minus the costs of three children.

On the other hand, if it's house-shared by four childless adults in their mid 20s, their budget is four adults' salaries, with none of the costs of children.

Lots of cities manage to do well with children; New York is an above-average performing urban school district with a million kids enrolled.

The problem is that with the rise of housing as an investment vehicle, cities have rapidly increased in price. In most countries housing is not a high-yield investment like stocks, it's a safer, low-yield investment like bonds. REITs have managed to destroy the goal of affordable housing for most people.

I wouldn't blame it on REITs but the vastly greater real lifetime income of the previous generations. Wages have been declining since the 70s.

I can't speak for OP, but most of my co-workers are in their 40s and 50s, but they live in SF or very built up inner-suburban areas. Not saying this is true of everyone, but this common trope does have some contradictory anecdotes.

> What is your coworkers' age range.

20s through 50s.