We both want to live close to our families, except they live 1,200 miles apart.

May 27, 2009 9:28 AM

We both want to live close to our families, except they live 1,200 miles apart.

NegotiationFilter:
The BF and I met 3 years ago when living in different cities on the East Coast. We both wanted a change in location so after 6 months of every-weekend bus trips to visit each other, we moved in together in Boston. We’ve encountered many ups and downs, but with professional help, are much improved in the fine arts of communicating and negotiating in our relationship. We are in a pretty solid place right now to plan a future together, with one exception: we are having trouble agreeing on a location to do so.

Since moving to the East Coast from the Midwest in 2002, I have been able to fly home to visit about 2 - 3 times a year, usually for long weekend or week-long trips to spend quality time with the fam, all of which is in Iowa. I also talk with my parents about once a week on the phone to catch up. As my Dad and Mom each have their own businesses, it is hard for them to visit more than once a year or every other year. All of the BF’s family is on the East Coast. He also talks with his parents weekly, and we see his parents and other family at least once a month, sometimes more.

As time goes on, I have realized that while I may not necessarily want to live in the same state as my family, living within a driving distance of about 5 hours (300 miles) or closer would be ideal. The BF feels the same way in regards to his family. So while I want to move closer to home, he wants to stay put.

We both agree that we would like to live about 2 hours (100 miles-ish) away from a major city. Our jobs can both be adapted to new locations. We would like to plan for a house with a garage and a large yard, and we want to be able to afford it. We also realize that life happens and that no location is guaranteed as permanent. But we agree that this is an issue we need to compromise on in order to move forward in our relationship.

As a side note: if flying home weren't so prohibitively expensive, I'd be willing to continue on the East Coast and just fly home more often. But as flights are usually about $500 a trip, it adds up very fast.

posted by lolalivia to human relations (14 comments total)

Where does his family live? If they live near a major airport (or a budget-flight hub like Manchester or Providence), then pragmatically it probably makes sense for you guys to live in Minneapolis or Chicago - both are an easy drive to (most of) Iowa and Minneapolis is a great place to afford a nice house while also having all the cultural advantages of a large city. Meanwhile, his family is a shortish flight away. I used to live in Mpls (family is in Boston) and if I bought my tickets at least a few weeks ahead of time, could usually get flights for under $250.

Your other alternative is to live somewhere in the middle, like Ohio, but that seems like a "please no one" sort of situation, since then you'll both be a full day's drive from your family.
posted by lunasol at 9:37 AM on May 27

Is your question about where to live, or about how to decide who will be nearest to their family?
posted by ddaavviidd at 9:38 AM on May 27 [1 favorite]

slightly unhelpful but just ran through my mind: if you buy plane tickets ahead of time, you save a lot of money. I just bought a one way ticket from NY to SF in mid-August for $128. so you can agree on a location that is comfortable for both of you and just know that you'll have to plan your trips home ahead of time.
posted by alona at 9:38 AM on May 27

Can you guys move somewhere in the Chicago suburbs that puts you guys within 200-300 miles of Iowa while still giving you access to O'Hare, where you can fly non-stop to basically any semi-large East Coast city? Also, sign up for Kayak.com and you can get email alerts when prices drop down to the amount you're willing to spend on weekend flights between cities.
posted by zoomorphic at 9:45 AM on May 27

Is your question about where to live, or about how to decide who will be nearest to their family?

It's about both.

RE: Buying plane tickets ahead of time:

I usually buy my tickets about 2 months in advance. Since there are no direct flights to Iowa, that's where it can get expensive since flight specials are limited to major airports.
posted by lolalivia at 9:47 AM on May 27

Where does his family live?

New Jersey, Long Island, and parents in Vermont.
posted by lolalivia at 9:48 AM on May 27

You can try either living a drive away from your family and flying away every once in a while to his, or vice-versa.
Option A: Chicago, Miluakee, basically anywhere in Wisconsin, Illinois or even Missouri.
Option B: in or around Philadelphia, New York, Albany, Boston, etc.

Personally I'd prefer east-coast cities as in option B over the mid-west, but this could present a problem if air travel to your family is problematic.
posted by alona at 10:02 AM on May 27

disclosure: I don't live in the USA so I didn't do this based on my knowledge of these cities but based on google maps and trying to find middle ground between the 4 areas you mentioned.
posted by alona at 10:03 AM on May 27

I think alona's option A sounds ideal, particularly as flights to the NY/NJ area are cheap and plentiful (no idea about Vermont).
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 10:09 AM on May 27

If cost is a big factor, it would make sense to aim for, say, Chicago (or another Southwest hub) and take Southwest to visit his family at $200 or so round trip per person. Or, if you like the East Coast well enough, can you simply budget for $2000-3000 or so a year in travel to Iowa? I don't mean to be snide, I'm actually quite serious. If you're asking "We want two mutually exclusive things, how can we achieve this?" with an aside that says "Actually, I'd be fine with things as they are, but for the cost of flying" it seems like the easiest compromise presenting itself would be for the two of you to agree that you'll continue to live where you are, but as a couple you make it a financial priority to set aside the money you'll need to travel more frequently to see your family.
posted by Meg_Murry at 10:21 AM on May 27 [5 favorites]

We also realize that life happens and that no location is guaranteed as permanent. But we agree that this is an issue we need to compromise on in order to move forward in our relationship.

So your options are:

1. Stay put, and budget for more money for travel home, as an unavoidable cost of staying in Boston

2. Move to Chicago/Milwaukee/Minneapolis/St. Louis/Kansas City, you are closer to your family, your BF must now budget for airfare to travel to see his family

3. The two of you decide to move to a third location that is not close to either family, and you both travel to see your families

4. After an honest examination of your feelings, you both realize that proximity to family is more important than the relationship, and you part ways.

Only you can decide which of those scenarios is the lesser of all evils. If you are truly OK with staying in Boston but for the expense of flying to Iowa, great. It may be one of those situations where the simplest answer is the correct one.

Geography is a tricky thing in relationships. Some people are very tied to a sense of place, and some people are not. If your BF is strongly tied to the Northeast Corridor (has he ever lived anywhere else?) he may resist moving elsewhere. That's entirely his prerogative. If you moved east for school or work but are now ready to go elsewhere, that's your prerogative. But it is something that you both need to be honest about, to yourselves and to each other. You mentioned that you are living together, but it's not clear how much budgeting the two of you do jointly. If you and your BF were to agree to give priority in the joint budget to $2K or $3K so that you could see your family, would that actually resolve the issue?
posted by ambrosia at 11:37 AM on May 27 [1 favorite]

I don't have a specific suggestion on where to live but based on the fact the you say the flights to Iowa add up quickly and that your jobs seem flexible enough to relocate why not consider somewhere with a cheaper cost of living than the Boston area? Everything is more expensive out here and if you can move to a cheaper area while maintaining a similar salary the money you save could be put towards more frequent trips to Iowa and/or the East Coast.
posted by 6550 at 12:57 PM on May 27 [1 favorite]

Similar to your situation, I moved from North Iowa to the west coast about four years ago. My entire family is in Iowa and my spouse's family is all located in the midwest as well. Let me make it very clear that family is VERY important to both of us.

We moved to the west coast to start a life together and, as you pointed out, we discovered that traveling home several times a year got very expensive (trust me, I know all about the 'no major airport' issue). Over time, we've cut back to one trip a year (which we make in the summer to avoid flight cancellations, delays, etc. - basically anything associated with the unpredictability that comes with Iowa winters).

Unlike you, we have absolutely NO family near us what-so-ever. It was extremely painful for some time being all alone. We've found, however, that during our one trip home, people look forward to seeing us more and we generally have more fun now than before when we took 2-3 trips home each year. As an added bonus, we save a lot of money.

My point is that, even though it may seem unimaginable for you to stay where you're at and cut back trips home to the midwest, I can attest that, as a self-proclaimed family man, one trip home per year is manageable and, for me, more enjoyable.

I love the life I've created for myself out here and, while I can never leave my family behind, this is where I choose to be.

If you like who you're with and where you're at, stay there and the rest will fall into place. My $0.02.
posted by siclik at 1:15 PM on May 27

What ambrosia wrote. I am a Minnesotan now in New England, and the bottom line is, one of you will not be close to their family.

The idea of picking a third sport is absurd, cut-the-baby-in-half thinking: that way neither family will regularly participate in your lives, and so both of you lose.

You have to work it out is all. Some people suggested we trty a couple of years in each area, but we never got around to moving before we had kids. :7)
posted by wenestvedt at 7:25 AM on May 28