City - best if single.

Agree that city living for singles or couples without kids as the amount of space tend to at a premium in urban settings and may not be enough if kids are involved.

Actually, neither. I would prefer the country, where we live now. Much better environment for children (and adults!)

I have lived in the city, suburbs and country. I prefer the city for the convenience it offers my lifestyle. Particularly job opportunities. My plan when I retire is to move to a mid sized town that can offer big city conveniences without all the traffic and noise.

I enjoyed large cities when I was working but moved to a smaller town when I retired. Suburbia is not for me. I love the country, but it's not so practical for a single senior citizen.

I would prefer city living. The suburbs require a long commute to work. The cost of transportation adds up, and the time spent traveling each day could be put to better use.

Right outside of the city is best, the space of suburban life with easy access to the amenities a city provides.

Suburbs until kids are teenagers

Not big on suburbs. I like my space to be big city or very country.

Definitely urban---not downtown, but walking distance to it. Preferably in a historical district.

If only I could have that house in the city!

I prefer city, it offers much more cultural and art events.

City

We recently moved from suburban to city (house in the city was completely remodeled to increase sq footage from 984 sq ft to 3000 before we moved in). Best of both worlds for a family of 4 and will be getting a dog soon. Wished we had made this move years ago because our young kids love the city, so much to do. No more 'When are we going to be there?' They are way more active. :)

Hate when people act like they're too good to live in the suburbs.

Suburbs. I like to be outside and I don't care for nightlife. The city makes me feel trapped and claustrophobic like living in a bubble.

That's interesting, shanandee. I feel trapped and isolated from things I know and use in the city when I'm too far away for long periods. Having grown up in the country, I do love it and generally prefer to vacation in areas as remote as possible. It's good that there are such varied preferences among us---it keeps all areas more alive.

Priorities often change with age. We lived in suburbs and in the country when we were younger, but recently moved back to my hometown (pop. 2M). I'm glad we did, not only because I broke my wrist in June and couldn't drive for 11 weeks -- an unthinkable inconvenience where we previously lived. Although we moved towards the edge of the city (living in or close to the center is way too expensive), we have plenty of public transportation and shops just around the corner, and our atrium bungalow with its smallish private garden is suitable to age in place.

I guess it really depends on the city! I'm in Saint Louis Missouri, and there are parts of the city I would not want to walk my dog in, much less live. Too much crime and under preforming schools....but on the flip side we have gorgeous century homes in private neighborhoods nestled within the city...some of which are for sale right now for just over a million bucks. Some of our suburbs again have old trees and century homes, and are less than a 15 minute car ride to our famed Forest Park, Busch Stadium, and Union Station or the Arch. The true suburbs, in my opinion, are west of where I live, with newer homes, many strip malls, lots of traffic, and are very one dimensional.

I have lived in city, country, and suburbs. My #1 preference is the city for the opportunities, for the diversity of people, for the conveniences. Really hated the country. Realllllly. The suburbs are better in terms of convenience, but living here means we have no friends because everyone's known each other since they were a zygote and they have no interest in (and often blatant hatred for) "outsiders", even "outsiders" who have lived here for 20+ years.

I grew up in Detroit right on the edge of the city; literally two streets within the city limits. It had a suburban feel. As a result, everywhere I've lived has been just barely within the city limits. It's the same now. I live inside the city limits; it has a suburban feel, but close to everything and the conveniences of what the city offers. I love it!

Suburbs all the way!

Being of retirement age now, I would prefer the city over a suburb, and the country over the city.

I grew up in the city and have been living in the suburbs 11 years now, so my kid can attend better schools. I the city my social life was great, but in the burbs it's nonexistent. Ugh. ...

Either... provided I can stipulate for a park or river, interesting neighbours, access to museums/galleries, a great school and a commute < 30 mins!

I prefer where I live now. Location is a mix. It's not the suburbs but you have room between houses and it quiet but a five minute drive and your at the store ... I am lucky to live in scotts valley a small town 5 miles from Santa Cruz California I feel we have the best of all worlds. We can drive a bit over an hour and be in San Francisco. 15 minutes to be in the redwoods , 10 minutes to the beach, and 3 hr to the snow..

I live in a unique situation. I have 3 acres in the country, but it is just a 2 mile drive to a city with nightlife and great restaurants, plus a theatre for concerts and musicals.

While each has its advantages, I prefer the city. But to be fair, the city townhouse shown in the picture above doesn't represent city living for anyone but the 1%.

The city definitely. Most suburbs are neither urban or rural so they don't offer much other than cheaper housing.