Why you're better off living in the city

Rolling fields vs. buzzing streets, rural pubs vs. trendy bars - the countryside vs. city debate has rolled on for years! But which way of life is easier on the wallet? Robert Powell finds out...

It’s the argument that will almost certainly be waiting for me when I arrive back home in Hereford next month for Christmas with the family.

It’s often initiated with a passing comment like...

‘London is such a rip-off!’ or ‘I don’t know how you put up with all those people in the city Rob!’

And it never ends in an agreement!

Yes, the annual countryside vs. city Christmas dinner ding-dong is starting to get as inevitable as the queens speech in the Powell household!

So for all the other lovemoney.com readers in both rural and urban areas who may find themselves in a similar situation this Christmas Day, here’s the lovemoney.com countryside vs. city financial face off...

Round 1: Living costs

If recent research is to be believed, the city may have the edge on this one. A report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) shows that people living in rural areas need to earn 20% more than those in urban areas to reach an acceptable standard of living.

Here’s a table showing the gross annual earnings needed by various social groups living in different areas of the country to reach a minimum living standard (this standard is set by ongoing research also carried out by JRF).

Source: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

The research also shows that transport is the biggest reasons for this price difference. This is because of a lack of public transport in rural areas, making a car almost always essential if you want to live in the countryside.

For some top tips on how to save money when in your car read Ten ways to cut your motoring costs.

And the winner of Round 1 is... the city!

Round 2: Pay

So if it costs more to live in the countryside, how much does it pay to live there?

The 2009 survey into working hours and earnings carried out by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) found that median weekly pay for the UK as a whole is £489. The median pay in London is £627 per week, predictably the highest in the country, Birmingham stands at £488 and Glasgow at £476.

Looking at rural areas; the median weekly pay for my hometown of Hereford is just £383, but this is at the lower end of the pay spectrum for countryside areas. In general pay in rural areas is below that of urban areas – but not by that much.

In fact, the real employment issue that needs considering is not amount of pay, but the amount of jobs. The 2010 State of the Countryside Report showed an ageing population in rural areas and a general migration of 16-24 year olds from the countryside to the city. This could be in part put down to a declining rural job sector and the resulting movement of young people to urban areas in search of work.

For more on the job sector today, read The most recession-proof jobs.

Undoubtedly a closer round, but still I’d say the winner is... the city!

Round 3: Property value

So if you’ve just finished university and you decide you want to work in city, but don’t fancy living there – what are your options for living in the countryside?

Well this year’s Halifax Rural Housing Review showed that rural homeowners have seen the value of their property rise by more than £100,000 in the past decade. The average price is now a whopping £209,972 – 20% more than the average property price in urban areas.

Bad news if you’re a first time buyer as, along with higher living costs, these soaring property values effectively price young people out of the countryside.

But it’s great news if you already own a home in the countryside or have a little more money to spend on a rural house. It’s no surprise therefore that the State of the Countryside Report also shows a large migration of 45-64 year olds from the city to rural areas.

For some first time buyer tips that might help in your search for the perfect property read Five ways you can afford a home.

A close one again, but because of the unaffordable house prices it’s going to have to go to the city!

Round 4: Crime

According to the British crime survey almost 26,000 people fall victim to crime every day. But where do they live? Take a look at this table comparing different crime statistics in rural and urban areas:

Source: Home Office British Crime Survey

It’s a no contest in this round – the winner is... the countryside!

Round 5: Quality of life

It’s debatable what you can judge quality of life by. Life expectancy may be a fairly good indicator of an areas general health and wellbeing. Several studies by the ONS have consistently shown that people living in rural areas will live for up to two years longer than their urban counterparts.

The ONS stats also show that deaths from drug misuse and deaths from lung cancer are higher in urban areas than in rural areas.

On the back of these stats, the winner of this round has to be...the countryside!

So it looks like the city has beaten the countryside by 3 rounds to 2 due to cheaper living costs, more jobs and a lower property prices.

Obviously stats can only tell us so much, as personal taste impacts majorly on any decision over where to live. I don’t need to tell you that if you can’t stand rolling fields and wide open spaces you won’t have a great quality of life in the countryside. And likewise, if you hate busy streets and packed buses, the best job and cheapest flat in the world isn’t going to be enough to make you want to live in the city.

What do you think?

Which is the more financially sensible option - countryside or city? And which is just straight-up better? Do you agree with my conclusions above?

Let us know your thoughts in the comment box below.

More: Why big houses are seeing big price falls Job cuts: Where the axe will fall