According to a recent article in the New York Times, most families will actually save money by choosing to live in New York City rather than moving to the suburbs once they have children.
There are a few caveats:
– The cost of paying for private schooling in lieu of public city schools changes the numbers quite drastically.
– The article presumes that the working parent(s) work in the city.
– As stated in the article, sometimes ideology or suburban lifestyle trumps affordability for growing families and they leave the city anyway.
You can read the full article here.
I would love to see the same article written for Cincinnati. My presumption is that the numbers would be the same: for a family whose working parent(s) work in the city, they would save money by living nearer to work. This should be common sense, no?
Maybe I’ll write that article, all numbers and statistics included.
One thought on “Read This: Suburban vs City Living costs”
I would love to see you write a comparable article with Cincinnati prices. The NYC prices were so high its a bit hard to imagine $8,000/ month in living expenses. I think you could definitely see savings in decrease from 2 cars to 1, especially if your job is downtown. I emphatically do not think private school is necessary when living downtown, but strangely a pretty high percentage of suburbanites in Cincy send kids to parochial schools at a cost of $6-10,000 per kid per year. Too bad you cannot monetize the happiness of not mowing grass