I grew up in a crappy rural area with next to no opportunity, and went to college in a crappy rust belt city with very little opportunity. Moved to NYC the day after graduation to start my career. As far as I can tell, if my life was playing out today, I'd probably pick up a remote gig and move someplace cheaper than NYC where I already know some people -- I simply wouldn't bother with the expensive giant cities because they've never been a good fit for my hobbies and interests. A lack of opportunities definitely shaped my high school experience, but where I live now has a lot more going on than where I grew up, even if they're similar densities. Not all small towns are the same!
And depending on what your kids are interested in, SF, NYC, etc. might lack opportunities for your kids, too -- it's not like they can explore nature, or mountain biking, or sailing, or a million other things easily in your average US city. I guess I'm just trying to say that there are tradeoffs no matter where you live, and we probably shouldn't generalize about "rural" and "urban". There's crappy unwalkable non-kid-friendly rural towns aplenty in the US. But there's also crappy unwalkable non-kid-friendly cities aplenty. The right corner of SF, or the right lively small town can both be good places to raise kids.
San Francisco has some the best access to nature, sailing and mountain biking anywhere in the country. I can drive for 15 minutes and be on the beach, in the mountain. And it's never too cold or too hot.
> I grew up in a crappy rural area with next to no opportunity, and went to college in a crappy rust belt city with very little opportunity
Don't assume the fact that you made it means that your kid would repeat that feat though.
If people looked at this honestly, they would have to admit that relocating from a city into a rural area for the explicit purpose of raising kids is effectively taking a gamble on what thing might look like in the future.
Where I grew up - small town of 4000 with no major city within 3+ hours drive. Nearest “city” was 100k people about 100 miles away.
Even in that - I didn’t feel it was super rural but compared to most people - that is seen as remote. May as well live in the Alaskan wilderness in their eyes.
Some people consider a suburb outside of Indianapolis as “rural”.
For example, I live about 50 miles west of Boston. There's lot of forest and field around me with an apple orchard and a Christmas tree farm next door. It's a small town and I think is technically classified as "exurban." No, I can't walk except to the forest paths but there's no shortage of shops, hospitals, etc. within a fairly short drive--and I can certainly drive into the city for events if I want to.
I work remotely but my local office is actually nearer my house than it is to Boston and that's true of a lot of tech-adjacent companies in Massachusetts which weren't historically in the city.
>If the answer to any of these questions is no, then you have your answer to why property prices near the cities aren't ever going to match the level of rural properties.
If the opportunities are mostly in the city, don't expect the cost of city dwellings to approach the cost of rural dwellings.
I grew up in a rural community and the path is quite simple. Grow up there, leave for university, go where the jobs are or go back and work remotely.
Cities will always be more expensive, but that is to be expected.
If the answer to any of these questions is no, then you have your answer to why property prices near the cities aren't ever going to match the level of rural properties.