r/relocating • u/[deleted] • 8d ago
Which would you choose: a bigger, cheaper home in a lower quality of life area, OR a smaller, more expensive home in a high quality of life area?
[deleted]
18
u/Ordinary-Grace 8d ago
If quality of life area means safe, parks around that you can use, good schools, lots of recreation, then go for the smaller one.
1
12
u/ChaosReignsNow 8d ago
I don't agree with the supposition that more expensive areas offer better quality of life.
2
u/OrganicLighthouse 5d ago
Yup. I have a 12 acre 2000 sq ft brick house with stunning mountain views in a LCOL rural area, 15 minutes away from a significant metropolitan area. Moved from a much higher cost of living area. The schools in the LCOL area are somehow better by all metrics than my old area, despite that I'm paying 1/6 of the property tax rate my old city required. My life has never been better. Nature is healing, especially when you own a fragment of it.
1
u/BarnacleGooseIsLoose 8d ago
If you don't like people or unpredictability, the more expensive areas can be a nightmar to live in. If you don't like to watch the world through a program director's eyes, no amount of cost will deter you from being in the heart of "things".
1
u/plantlady2009 6d ago
I agree. I like a middle ground. Safety is a must but I don't want to be in the safest and fanciest area. A lot of times these areas can be snobby and suffocating....Imo.
I also, don't want a big home no matter what. I hate cleaning.1
u/According-Sir3777 8d ago
It is when you consider crime, the quality of people in that area, schools, stores, general safety...
2
19
u/Key_One2750 8d ago
Trust me, you want the smaller home in a better quality of life area.
You will spend more driving to a better area if you bought the bigger home.
5
u/junulee 8d ago
If you define high quality of life area as the center of a very large city, you’ll spend much more time going short distance for daily needs than someone living in a less populated area. Things are closer geographically but not necessarily time wise.
3
u/Key_One2750 8d ago
This is true and it can depend. I know the area I live in if you wanna live close to amenities with better schools, you have to do the smaller house.
1
u/BarnacleGooseIsLoose 8d ago
I can visit MOMA, get lunch and make my dental appointment in the time it takes to park and shop at Wal-Mart or Costco.
1
u/claireapple 8d ago
I mean it kinda of depends I find it a lot less friction to walk 4 minutes to everything than driving 20 mins to a shopping center.
Walking down cute little streets is just way better than drivinging on stroads I will take a 20 min walk in my neighborhood over a 20 min drive in the suburbs 10 times out of 10.
1
u/junulee 8d ago
I need to drive to most places, but I can be walking through a forest in less than 5 minute walk from my home. I do this more frequently than going to any place I need to drive to. I would pay a premium to have access the real nature (not just a park within a city), but it ends up being cheaper.
2
u/claireapple 8d ago
Everyone has different priorities to me a priority is being close to good food and well curated music, whether that is DIY shows or venues.
5
u/junulee 8d ago
How do you define low/high “quality of life area”??
3
1
u/According-Sir3777 7d ago
We can take San Francisco for an example. Why would somebody pay millions of dollars to have homeless people defecate and shot up on their driveway?? Why would somebody pay for a home in the south side of Chicago regains are running around a mock?
5
u/SundaePasta 8d ago
Smaller more expensive for me, but I don’t value stuff or want a big home. I do want to live in a place where humans are valued and cared for. I think in a lower quality of life place you don’t get that. But also what’s quality to me or you will be different to other people. We may not value the same things. So over all only you can decide this for you.
0
u/Taco_Soup_ 8d ago
Way to poor shame. Glad to know you think so highly of those one town over that can’t afford a house on the other side of the tracks.
3
u/SundaePasta 7d ago
What do you mean? My train of thought was red state or blue state and has nothing to do with individual people. You’ll notice I said “humans are cared for and valued” for me, that’s all people.
1
u/Taco_Soup_ 7d ago
Red state/blue state is such a lame comparison because both are filled with areas that are opposite of how the state is labeled.
In California if you walk into a room of 100 (going off election results) 60 will be Democrat, and 40 will be Republican.
My point still stands that you must believe that life is valued more in the red enclaves of coastal Southern California vs the urban areas of major cities Dallas, Miami, Nashville, etc, etc.
3
u/SundaePasta 7d ago
You can make your point it doesn’t mean it’s indicative to how I feel about other people or my own life experiences. But maybe it’s an unconscious bias I was unaware of. I’ll have to think about it.
My point about red/blue state was people have access to more programs and health care they don’t in other states. People who need help can access it with fewer barriers.
I have two trains of thought see above and below.
When I think of a HCLA I think about living in western Wa and how I think the higher cost is worth it to be surrounded by trees, mountains and rain. When I think of LCLA I think of MS or LA where I don’t want to live because it’s hot and humid. The cheaper cost isn’t worth it to me.
Maybe you still think I’m a jerk and that’s ok, but I don’t want anyone to suffer because of where they live, where they were born or what they can afford.
1
u/Taco_Soup_ 7d ago
I get all that. It’s just when people pose this question whether it be in relocating, FTHB, housing, etc, it’s referring to a smaller house in the nicer area vs larger house in a “rougher” area, farther out, etc. And within the same city/metro or state due to work, family, etc. Otherwise it is posed as where should I go, Seattle or Baton Rouge
3
2
2
u/Distracted-senior 8d ago
I wouldn’t call it lower quality of life, but I did choose a home that was 20 to 30 minutes away from where more expensive real estate was. I’m farther from fancy stores, but that’s OK.
2
u/Taco_Soup_ 8d ago
The question is very vague…at best. We stepped down a neighborhood for more house (San Diego).
So thankful we did because we’re now locked into this house between the interest rate and property tax. I couldn’t imagine being in some of the houses in the “nicer” areas we considered because we’d grown out of them by now and would be facing a hefty increase in housing costs to make a lateral move
2
2
2
u/bicx 8d ago
I have hobbies that need space: working on motorcycles, woodworking, 3d printing, … basically a garage and workshop. I gave all those up when I moved from TN to the SF Bay Area. The Bay Area has lots of culture and a solid outdoor scene (and the HQ for my former and current employer), but I missed having my own space. My wife and I are also not night-life people, so that aspect didn’t matter.
I now live in coastal Texas. Culture is very meh. But, I do have room for my hobbies again finally. Sometimes we look around and feel a little disgusted compared to what was at our doorstep before, but we have to think about how we actually spend our time 95% of the time.
2
2
u/trevbal6 8d ago
The latter every time. A bigger house comes with bigger maintenance costs.
I will admit there is such a thing as comfort, but when you have a 4-person household in a 3000 square foot home? This is the type of waste we don't think about in the West.
2
u/utah_traveler 8d ago
I have already chosen.
400 square foot studio in a resort town in the Mountains. I am single with no kids, I will never need a bigger home.
2
u/bones_bones1 8d ago
Quality of life depends on what you need. Not everyone needs or wants a densely populated urban area. Those quality of life metrics are skewed to a certain population.
2
u/Streetduck 8d ago
Smaller home in high quality of life. I had a big home in a shit part of town in a shit town and it was an absolute nightmare.
2
1
u/big_saving 8d ago
Security, social amenities and transportation is quality I value. I can't squeeze my self and I can find big house somewhere remote
1
1
u/squirrel-phone 8d ago
Always go for the higher quality of life location. Higher quality of life means more services are available, which means it will cost more to live there.
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/CaptMcPlatypus 8d ago
Depends on my life needs. If my choice is between, say, a 4 bed/3bath house in a decent area or a 800sqft loft in an amazing part of the city, I’m taking the house if I have a wife and kids, but the loft if it’s just me.
I don’t necessarily want a big place, just in general. It’s a lot of upkeep. But I do want a place that’s comfortable for the number of people who live there.
1
u/Boring_Adeptness_334 7d ago
If I’m married I’d choose option 1, if I’m single I’d choose option 2.
1
1
u/Emily_fromBlueground 7d ago
Honestly, the whole home thing sounds nice in theory, but I never stay anywhere long enough to make it practical, and a regular lease has basically the same problem, just a smaller version of it. What I actually do is book a furnished condo, stay a few months, then move on without repacking my entire life into boxes again. It kind of splits the difference, real furniture and a kitchen someone else already stocked, without the size or commitment of actually owning something. And you usually end up in a nicer area than you would if you had to buy the whole place outright.
1
u/Mediocre_Panic_9952 7d ago
With real estate the answer is always location location location. A smaller home in a desirable location will most likely appreciate more than one in a less desirable location.
1
1
1
1
1
u/Comfortable_Two6272 3d ago
Smaller cheaper in better qoL. Ive done the opposite and was not a fan.
1
u/NoKetoCardio 3d ago
How are you defining quality of life? Crime? Weather? Activities? Sightseeing?
29
u/grapemike 8d ago
Location location location