If you had the Means/Choice - House first or Baby?

[BlackLili]

If you have/had the choice - would you have a house first, or a baby?

I'm posting this poll in here because as of late, I find myself with a choice to make. I want a baby. I want to start our two-legged family and finally be allowed to enjoy doing it. DH thinks it would be ideal if we had a house first before we started all that. I agree that it would be ideal, but I'm wondering if its really necessary.

All the doom and gloom about the housing market and the current and impending economic pressures makes me wonder if it would just be a better idea to put my fertility and house dreams on hold for, oh say, another decade, and then see if its safe to peek my head out yet at that time.

At the same time, I don't really want to put my life on hold anymore. I've put off wanting to get married and have a family since I was in high school, first for college, then for finding the right guy, then five years while we dated, and now the whole first year of our marriage.

So, here's my call. I could choose to continue to enjoy the early years of our marriage without kids, building some beautiful memories of just the two of us - not a bad option at all, so please don't see me as totally opposed to it. I could choose to leap into the crashing housing market, and potentially lose not only equity but lose out on a chance for a better house in just a couple of years so that I can start the family I want with the DH. Or, I could choose to start the family in the townhouse we live in now, and move into a house of our own down the road, albeit minus the money we'd have spent having said kiddo.

I know we've got folks on this site who have had "little surprises" and others who have spent long years planning for and having their kids too. If given the choice though, I'd like to see what you all would prefer, ideally.

[TheWomanMonster]

ideally I'm going to try for a house first.

[Amethyst Rose]

For us, the first baby just happened but we were plenty fine without a house first. My heart broke at the idea of not having a baby and at the time I definitely would have said baby first house later, because there was no way of telling when we'd be able to afford a house. The only reason we could afford our house when our son was 9 months old, was because my husband's grandfather died and we used his inheritance as a down payment. Otherwise, we may very well still be without a house.

To me, baby was more important than 'stuff' which is just what a house is, really.

[Bluewillow]

My husband and I are aiming to have a house before we bring a child into the picture.

We're in no hurry to have a child, simply put. I am on birth control, and so far so good as far as that goes. We've basically agreed to wait until I'm about 30 years of age (give or take a year) before trying for a child. That gives us a little over 5 years from now, in which time we'd like to own a home (be paying a mortgage at least, anyway), have more financial stability and so on. I think there are a lot of things that we both need to experience before becoming parents. On an emotional level, while I love kids I don't believe I'm ready to become a mother.

I'd just like to be as prepared as we possibly can be on all fronts before we have children. As it stands, we're simply enjoying married life.

To each their own, though. It's a very personal decision. If you feel that you are ready to bring a child into the world, then more power to you.

[Tanya]

I would say house first... but i did the oppisite... babies really don't care about environment... the patio and park down the street was fine for my daughter until she was about 2.... then i wanted a back yard.... and that's when we got our first house.

[Amethyst Rose]

Though not many people have voted yet, I'm surprise to be the only person who said baby first. I always felt that if we waited until we had a house and were completely financially stable and with established careers that we would put off having kids forever.

I'm wondering if this is a growing phenomenon and if that's the reason why all my mom-friends are a good 5 years older than me, at least. They all waited until they were secure to have kids, which meant waiting until their 30's. I had my first at 25, and that was still 2 years later than I wanted. :) I wanted to be done having kids by the time I was 30...got that right, at least. :)

[Lyrien]

House first, that was our requirement.

However, the reason I wanted the house first was because it just seemed wrong not to have a yard for play. It will be MUCH easier to buy a house before you have kids, it just seems that much more difficult to save money when you're spending it left and right on babies. I can understand your concern for the housing market, it's a very valid concern, but there is nothing preventing you from renting a house. This way you have the yard, the 'homey' feel, and have not made the financial investment in such a volatile market. Besides if you area is anything like it is around here, there are thousands of vacant homes that aren't selling and the owners are renting them out because they've already moved. Because of this, rents are dropping and are becoming negotiable.

[BlackLili]

Though not many people have voted yet, I'm surprise to be the only person who said baby first. I always felt that if we waited until we had a house and were completely financially stable and with established careers that we would put off having kids forever.

I'm wondering if this is a growing phenomenon and if that's the reason why all my mom-friends are a good 5 years older than me, at least. They all waited until they were secure to have kids, which meant waiting until their 30's. I had my first at 25, and that was still 2 years later than I wanted. :) I wanted to be done having kids by the time I was 30...got that right, at least. :)
See, that's what I'm wondering about - whether the house makes any real difference. I want kids while I'm young - my husband is 9 years older than me, and while I'm not worried about either one of our fertility, I am concerned that in 5 more years, he will be close to 40. Now, I'm pretty sure that at 45, he will be less able to crawl along the floor and play piggyback to a 5-year old than he would be in the very next few years. Actually, its probably something we're going to discuss tonight maybe...if I can get him to talk to me about it.

[BlackLili]

House first, that was our requirement.

However, the reason I wanted the house first was because it just seemed wrong not to have a yard for play. It will be MUCH easier to buy a house before you have kids, it just seems that much more difficult to save money when you're spending it left and right on babies. I can understand your concern for the housing market, it's a very valid concern, but there is nothing preventing you from renting a house. This way you have the yard, the 'homey' feel, and have not made the financial investment in such a volatile market. Besides if you area is anything like it is around here, there are thousands of vacant homes that aren't selling and the owners are renting them out because they've already moved. Because of this, rents are dropping and are becoming negotiable.
I suppose renting and saving might not be a bad route to go, at that. We have friends who already rent their houses and are quite happy with them. I guess if I save my nickels while I do that, I could think about a down payment on a mortgage by the time the kid would be ten or so...

Thanks, more to ponder.

[Autumn]

Ideally house first but if that is going to push the procreation into the distant future then have the baby...because sometimes life throws you curve balls and having a baby is a time sensitive thing.

Most young (20's) women get pregnant if you look at them crosswise but as you get into your 30's it stops being so easy. Everyone is different however if you might take 6 months to get pregnant in your 20's for whatever reason it may take much longer in your mid 30's

[Amethyst Rose]

Ah, yes, I forgot to add that when we had my first son we were renting a house with a yard - we needed one for the dogs. :)

[Sun Sprite]

While a house is nice, the financial upkeep is quite expensive. Not to mention, the down payments. Also, if you move into an established neighborhood, what happens when the elderly die, or move out? If you suddenly get dangerous neighbors, or a neighborhood goes to crime from foreclosures, are you going to feel safe with a child there?

At least with a landlord, you can move within a reaonable amount of time, and they pay for upkeep of the place.

If I had a choice, I would have a family. A house is nice, but can quickly become a burden, if you are so busy running places with your kids that you have to pay someone else to do yard upkeep, and house upkeep.

I forgot to add:
Houses are tough to sell these days. If your job moves, and you can't, what will you do? Renting makes job moves easier than the worries of selling a home, and finding a place to live in betwen while starting a new job

[RainInanna]

I didn't want a house before a baby - flat out, did not want to see a big empty house. Now we rent a house, have a yard, and the baby still isn't big enough to be out in it (he's 9 months old). We actually just inherited enough money for a down payment and chose not to yet.

[Myzterio]

Ideally, a house first (preferably owned, but rented would do), as well as a stable income. I'd prefer to be able to provide my children with luxury, even though I don't exactly have a materialistic view on life. It's just nice to be able to do pretty much what I want where my children are concerned.

However, should the baby come first, that doesn't mean it'd be unwanted or anything. We're talking ideally here. And, yes, I want to have children fast, and I'm already running behind on studies, so I really need to get my career running fast. I'm not a career-person, but now that I have my goal (read: raise a family), I'm very willing to do it, on condition that my hypothetical wife will allow me to spend time with my children as desirable. That may, in fact, mean she'll have to work part-time so I can take a day off.
It depends on who gets what salary, and all that. :)

Erm, back on topic, the house and steady income would be preferable because it takes worries away. I'm guessing raising a child/children is enough to worry about in its own right. But, that's all it is. It doesn't need to be anything fancy (though, of course, I would prefer it to be my dreamhouse ;) ), as long as it's big enough, and practical.
Should I be unable to acquire living space, the attic here at my parents' house would likely be available. Not the best solution, but it'll be good enough. :)

[Athena-Nadine]

My requirement was married first then house then babies. I didn't meet my husband until I was 30, in 2003. We were a little backwards because we bought the house before we got married. We got engaged the night before we moved in. We got married 18 months after we met, when I was 31, because we didn't want to wait any longer to start trying for children. We got pregnant 7 months after that. I was 33 when my son was born and 34 when my daughter was born. I will be 35 in January and my husband will be 40 in April. We're both still plenty young and energetic. ;)

[phoenixrising]

House then baby.. but that didn't work out ;) Wouldn't change it for the world now

[Brightshores]

I think it's really a personal choice and there are pros and cons for both.

Those who say that your peak fertility years are earlier are absolutely correct, plus, having kids earlier decreases the chances of some genetic deformities and diseases. However - there are plenty of people who have kids throughout their 30s and 40s and are absolutely fine, with happy, healthy children.

Housewise, I've always felt that it's better to be putting money into the equity in a house than spending it on rent, since it's really more of an investment. Since house prices have fallen quite a bit, I'd say that if it isn't a buyer's market now, it will be quite soon. Plus, it's good to have that sense of stability. That being said, though, I know plenty of people in apartments with very happy babies, and I don't think it's a requirement in any way, shape, or form to have a house first.

So - I'd say - do whatever feels right for you and your husband. :) Either way - you can make it work. Some of the best advice I've been given is "it's never the right time to have a baby." There's always something else that can be done- getting a promotion, getting a better job, moving, stashing money into a 401K, etc. It's never going to be the "perfect time." As long as you have enough money to keep you all fed, clothed, and reasonably comfortable, you should do what feels right to the both of you.

[WolfPup522]

Though not many people have voted yet, I'm surprise to be the only person who said baby first. I always felt that if we waited until we had a house and were completely financially stable and with established careers that we would put off having kids forever.

I'm wondering if this is a growing phenomenon and if that's the reason why all my mom-friends are a good 5 years older than me, at least. They all waited until they were secure to have kids, which meant waiting until their 30's. I had my first at 25, and that was still 2 years later than I wanted. :) I wanted to be done having kids by the time I was 30...got that right, at least. :)

I totally agree. I had the baby first and didn't really care one bit about having a house at the time. Now my 'baby' is 14 and I have a townhouse (which I just bought 2 years ago). It may not be a big ol' house, but it's mine and it's in a good neighborhood. I do like the stability of having the TH, but as long as where you live is safe and you and your family is comfortable, I don't think it matters if you are in an apartment or have a great big house on 50 acres.

Now, when you throw age into the mix, the house becomes even less important to me. If I had waited until I had a house before having my daughter, I'd be miserable by now. I really really wanted to be a mommy and while my daughter wasn't planned, I was thrilled to have her as young as I did (I am in NO WAY saying that 20 is the right age for everyone!). Most of her friends parents are 5-10 years older than me and are probably more financially stable/well off than me and their kids have more 'stuff' than my daughter, but who cares? Honestly, having a baby now would be WAY harder - on my body mostly.

But that's just me - everyone should do what they feel is best for them. I just don't think that you should put 0ff having kids until you have a house if you are REALLY ready to have kids.

[Brigid Rowan]

I think whatever makes you and your hubby feel at peace, is the best choice for you...because happy, relaxed people make better marriage partners and better parents.

[Morr]

Ideally, a house first.

Scarlet was part surprised, part planned.

We decided to see what happens... I monitored my cycles, but not religiously.. I wanted a baby, but figured it would happened when it would happen. I assumed it would happen this year, but not so quickly. I got pregnant the 2nd month after we stopped using BC.

At the time we were living in a house with roomates...

We moved out of there for several reasons, including the pregnancy, in May of this year.

We are moving again, to a bigger place, next week.

It's not easy moving around with a baby. I'd like to give her more stability as for her environment.

But as a kid, my parents and I moved around a lot due to my dad's job and stuff. I turned out okay.

We are aiming to look for a house we can eventually own, sometime in the next couple of years.

So I hope by the time Scarlet (and whoever comes after her) are bigger, we will own a home of our own.

Having a house first would be ideal and much easier... But it's not the end of the world. At this point, I would choose Scarlet over anything else in the world. Having a house of our own would be a bonus. Something less to stress about.

But it's all working itself out.

[RayneStorm]

I voted house first. I've never been an "apartment girl" even when I was single. Too small, nosy neighbours, no pets allowed (not all though), no atmosphere (where I was anyway). Then when I got preggers with Luke we were pretty much homeless.. I was staying with my parents (in an apartment no less!) and Mike was with his mom at least an hrs drive away... This was around this time last yr. Now however, we're renting the top floor of a house, Luke has his own room and we have two other bedrooms, huge front and back yards, fireplace, lots of animals... It's great! I love it.
Luke did come unexpectedly but ideally I would have chosen a house, a decent place to live with a stable income first. Things have turned out though.

Rayne

[Marcasite]

Ideally, I would've gone house first or at least a little more financial stability.
But if it came down to waiting 5 years for the house or having the baby, I'd probably choose the baby.
I wouldn't change my situation for the world, tough though it may be. We're going to be living with a roomate until the baby's born, then get our own appartment after that.

[Arani]

My SO and I want a house first, we'd feel more financially stable and also, a house is a more permanent home than an apartment.

In my area at least, now is the time to buy, because there aren't many buyers in the markets which are driving prices down...

[moonchild]

we did house first, then dog, then child, now onto #2. in retrospect, i think maybe we weren't entirely honest with ourselves on what we were going to need with a child included since we didn't have dd yet. We are busting at the seams with only one child and its a little overwelming to think of how 2 are going to fit in here. we have a 3 bdrm with a yard but not nearly the space that i thought we were going to need. We are not going to be able to buy another home for some time either. Its really a crapshoot if you think about it. we got sick of renting and not having our *own* place and that is why we opted for buying. I don't know if I would have done anything differently, but maybe look for more sq footage....lol!

[DreamSpell333]

We decided to have children before a house. We couldnt afford a house then and still cant really afford one now. Were still working on cleaning our credit up. We are both content with renting though as it means we dont have to do all the repairs to the apartment.
I would love to have a house someday just not sure when. My FIL didnt buy his first house until he was 50...

I love my kids, they mean the world to us and I know that I wouldnt do anything differently .
Good luck with whatever you and hubby decide is right for you both. :hugz:

[RavensEye]

Well I would have liked to have the house first.. but in reality I got the kids first and in away that is better because now I know exactly how much space for a house I will need and what we are looking for instead of second guessing what will be needed.

[angle kitsune]

I know I am alittle young for this one but seeing as I will be married in about a year and a half if things go well Billy has broght this up with me- trying to make it seem like he was just woundering. I would like a home first, not nessacaly a house but a home. I have lived in apartments all my life and I would have no problem starting a family in a decent apartment complex when we are steady when it comes to money. I don't want a kid now though- it has been agreed that none of that will come to be till Billy finishes Jobcorps and then college. Between four and six years from now and that is just fine and dandy!