4 floor walkup with 2 year old

Sounds like every time would require two round-trips on the stairs (once with the kid and any purses/diaper bags/packages etc.) and another to retrieve the stroller which can't effectively be left downstairs. Sure, you get a great work-out, but not feasible - what do you do with the kid when you're getting the stroller? Not to mention a huge time-waster. If you have to make a binary choice, I'd choose the 2d floor apartment. Do you have time to keep looking for something better? (E.g. garden level)

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 1:45 PM

We had a 3rd floor walk-up until my son was 3 and it was hard. You can do it, but you can count on your precious two year old to refuse to walk up on the days when you really need them to. Still, it's a tough trade-off because more space is good too. Do you have a good strong back and a lot of patience? If so, the walk-up is probably fine.

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 1:45 PM

OP here.
well, it CAN be left downstairs just folded like an umbrella rather than open and full of odds and ends.

"precious" 2 year old is very active right now but not generally in the direction one wants him to go..

hmm. its a tough one :( 3 real bedrooms with a walk rather than bus to amenities is a difficult find.

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 2:15 PM

how did people ever raise children in NY?

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 2:34 PM

They didn't. Everyone with kids lived in the suburbs. Staying in the city with kids is a recent phenomenon (oh, say the last 4-5 years and definitely not before 2001).

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 4:23 PM

I'd take the extra bedroom. They don't stay toddlers forever. You do not want to have to flip and buy another place in 2 years, to get the extra space. That sounds like a bigger pain than some stairs.

Our upstairs neighbors in our old coop dealt with having babies and toddlers on the 3rd and 4th floors just fine. Never heard any complaints from them.

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 6:12 PM

We have a 16 month old and another on the way;, and we just moved into a 3rd floor walkup with 3 full br's (vs. 2 brs w/elevator). Yeah, it sucks now, but what would suck even more would be having to move in 4 or 5 years when the kids outgrew a small bedroom. Go for the 3 bedrooms.

As for the stroller thing, we've been able to store a jogging stroller in the bsmt for long trips. usually we leave an umbrella stroller folded up in the foyer. (and carefully plan our trips!)

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 9:19 PM

I think you need to figure out how much the extra hassle of the stairs/stroller will bother you. After all, you may have a 2nd kid and so it could be a longer period of time dealing with stroller stuff.

I lived in a third floor walk-up until my kid was 2 1/2, but I could leave my stroller "out" (not folded) in the parlor floor entrance. That made a huge difference -- it really is a pain to open and shut the strollers, even the umbrella ones. And what kind of toddler you have matters, too...my first was quiet and would wait for me, but my 2nd is off like a shot when I put him down. Try folding a stroller when your kid is trying to get out the door.

One of the wondrous things about NYC is being able to walk out your door and have everything there. But I remember that when I lived in the walk up with the toddler, it took much more planning. You pretty much leave once for the day, and if you are back home, more reluctant to go out again because it can be such a headache. If you are someone who isn't put off by the extra work, then go for it, but it's definitely a trade off. If you were renting, I'd definitely recommend trying it, because you can always move if you hate the lifestyle. But honestly, if it was me, I wouldn't buy something unless the apartment was the steal of the century -- not just 3 bedrooms, but really cheap, and not just by Manhattan standards. But I know many people who live in walk ups with kids and are perfectly happy.

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 9:59 PM

4:23....you are kidding right? I was born and raised here as was my father....the same as my three kids who are 19, 17 and 12...as to getting up and down stairs...wait til the second one comes along then it get really fun. The extra room is worth it. You'll figure it out!

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 10:15 PM

yes, i'm pretty sure 4:23 was being sarcastic.

Posted by: guest at October 5, 2007 11:42 PM

Actually, I think 4:23 really thought s/he was telling the truth. There are a lot of people in Brooklyn for whom the natives and longtime residents are invisible. Or whose experiences don't count when one is weighing an issue like how does a family live in a 4th floor walkup. When the answer is, "just like the families of the last 100 years did".

Posted by: guest at October 6, 2007 12:40 PM

I'm not 4:23 (and actually I assumed s/he was being sarcastic also). But, I also believe that, in terms of the OP's question, the issue of how families have done it for 100 years is irrelevant.

I know this is somewhat of a generalization, but I do believe most of the families who lived in walk-ups in the past were people who had no other good options. The walk-ups were inexpensive apartments and I wonder how many high-income families with kids lived in them. More likely, your average professional couple would have lived in an elevator/doorman building or an entire brownstone.

These days, you are paying at least half a million dollars for the "privilege" of owning a walk-up apartment. People who can afford that (in additionl to the maintenance) have other options, so whether they want to put up with the inconvenience of the walk-up is more of a choice rather than a necessity.

Posted by: guest at October 6, 2007 4:31 PM

Yes, 4:31, but the OP's other options are already spelled out here: smaller apartment or farther from amenities. Nearly everyone, even those people who lived in walk-ups in the past, has "other options" regardless of financial status. You make choices based on what your priorities are. I don't think past experiences are irrelevant at all. There are always people (privileged or otherwise) who prefer urban living, despite its hardships.

Posted by: guest at October 7, 2007 5:25 PM

Sorry, 5:25, but I still don't buy that argument. It used to be that urban living was often less expensive than living elsewhere. Typically, once people made enough money, they bought a house elsewhere and commuted. Or they continued to work hard, live in their cheap apartment, but put their kids through college and the kids, who were now professionals, bought "nicer" apartments that weren't walk-ups, or houses in the burbs.

I think those families would have found it laughable that people now pay twice as much for a walk-up apartment than they could pay for an entire house in some decent suburbs. Of course everyone makes choices based on priorities, and always has, but please compare what people were paying for those walk-up apartments 100 or 50 or even 30 years ago compared to living in other places. I would bet the rent on those walk-up apartments was far cheaper than the mortgage payment for a house in the suburbs. Now, it's way more expensive.

Imagine telling those families of the last 100 years that they could pay 1/2 the rent, save hundreds (if not thousands) of dollars each year, and get a much nicer home with lots of space and even a better school system if they moved to the burbs. Or, they could continue to pay twice as much money to live in their 4th floor walk-up. Of course some people would still prefer urban living, but I'm just saying that the hardships weren't something that families used to pay a high premium to experience. The fact that they are now willing to do so reflects a change in how NYC is perceived. And that's why just saying "families have done it for 100 years" isn't really relevant, since they did it because it was cheaper, not more expensive.

Posted by: guest at October 7, 2007 5:58 PM