City Life and Urban Retirement
September 15, 2010 by MJP
Filed under Places to Retire
I have no doubt that there are many retirees living in high density urban areas. Most of them probably lived and worked there long before retirement, so they just stayed to enjoy what they were used to. The question I have is whether it makes sense for a baby boomer to move into a large city as a specific retirement destination. A recent article in Forbes discusses that very issue and identifies some cities where that might make sense.
I enjoy time visiting some large cities. Chicago is a particular favorite. But I have serious doubts about large city living as a permanent retirement destination.
First, the cost of living just has to be higher. Let’s start with expensive residential real estate and high rents. Also, many large cities are located in areas where the state and local income taxes are astronomical. Add in the cost of owning a vehicle in a large city and the combined financial obstacles can be deal killers for a middle class retiree.
Downtown living in a large urban area usually means a high rise or other multi-dwelling building. This may involve stairs or other features that can present mobility problems for an aging retiree.
Although I would find it attractive to be close to cultural amenities found in many large cities, I am better able to relax in a less congested environment, particularly if there are outdoor recreational opportunities. This is clearly a matter of personal preference.
The Forbes article notes that crime rates in many cities have declined. That may be so, but they are still way higher than in suburban or rural areas.
Finally, many older adults – including me – enjoy pets. We have two large dogs. We like our dogs, for a lot of reasons. It would be close to impossible to keep them if we lived in an urban dwelling.
What do you think about the concept of retirement in the center of a large city?
Here is a link to the Forbes article and slide show.
FREE UPDATES: If you enjoy what you read here, please consider subscribing to receive free updates automatically by RSS feed or by email. (I promise that your email address will not be shared or used for any other purpose.)
My Related Posts:
As you say, the decision is in large part personal. For us, a big city is nice to live nearby so when we need some culture we can visit. The thought of living in the city with the traffic, costs, and noise is quickly out voted by a quiet setting with a neighborhood where you can safely walk at night and neighbors who greet you rather avoid your eyes. Another option is to retire somewhere near a university or college where there is always something going on but without the oppressive nature of a big city. As they say, different strokes for different folks…
We currently live in a large urban area and can’t wait to retire back to the country! However, we still did want to be with an hour or 90 minutes of the city so we can make trips to Costco and to see the kids and grandkids. You do have to give up some conveniences to live in less populated areas but if you’re retired, you have time to make an occasional trip to the “big city” to enjoy baseball games and other entertainment and then you can go back to your quiet little piece of heaven.
We currently live in New York City. While the thought of more quiet and greenery is tempting, we have a large network of long-time friends that I would miss socializing with. Another consideration is mobility–what will happen when we can no longer drive? On our short list is Berkeley, CA. Fairly good transportation, excellent disabled services, and our grandchildren are there.
Although we are planning to retire to a country setting, I can foresee the time when we have to move back to the city for reasons Eva is suggesting. What we’re doing is looking for a house in our current city which we can rent out for now but it’s our fall back plan if we need to move back. Our kids are here in the city so if we needed more help with things, they would be close by.