Urban ERE

[NYC ERE]

I want to make it happen. It's hard for me to imagine spending anything less than the majority of my time in a major city. Getting out to the country for several months a year sounds good to me too. Then, urban farming = ideal.
I've been perusing triplexes/duplex+cottages in NYC and SF--there are a reasonable number in both cities (more in NYC than SF) the down payment on which would be <$200k (2x my ERE housing investment number; so I'm presuming a good-saving spouse) and whose rent would pay the mortgage + property taxes. (insurance + maintenance I haven't taken a close look at yet)
It isn't the same sort of "decoupling" or independence as owning property outright, but I'm willing to hitch my wagon to the long-term survival (and thriving) of the City.

[mike]

I found their approach to be very interesting:
http://urbanhomestead.org/
I find this form of gardening very conducive to urban agriculture:
http://organicgardening.about.com/od/st ... garden.htm

[JohnnyH]

Does it have to be a major city?... You could likely find a similar, if smaller, setting that would be much more favorable to your finances.
College town somewhere?
What about the city are you so attracted to?
I like the city, but I prefer trips to it, and recharges out in the sticks.

[George the original one]

Backpedaling, eh?
If it's a big city you're after, combined with access to hunting locations within cycling distance, you should include Seattle in the mix. I'm not sure SF qualifies in that regard.

[AlexOliver]

Portland might be better than Seattle, because of the no sales tax thing. Seattle seems better for building up wealth, because of the absence of an income tax.

[George the original one]

Portland, however, isn't as "big city" as Seattle. In fact, I'd say it's distinctly not a big city, though the feel is different than it used to be.

[AlexOliver]

Once you get out of the central area of Seattle (downtown, Capitol Hill etc), the residential areas are very similar to Portland's. Seattle is bigger but has more hills and is therefore harder to bike in. Portland's more laid back.
They both have their pros and cons. I'm definitely going to have a hard time choosing when the time comes!

[NYC ERE]

@Johnny @George Indeed, backpedaling, rethinking, as ever. I like the big (major) city because of the ability to be somewhere or do something quite different at a moment's notice without getting into a car--to my mind, this restricts me to SF/NYC/Europe (I like bike-friendly Portland and Seattle, but at this point even SF seems like a sleepy port town to me). I also like being surrounded by people while having the choice between anonymity/being known or being social/not being social. The biggest reason is that my creative interests are film and music, and the biggest talent pools and venues for these are in big cities. I'm more likely to spend my "free time dividend" on these pursuits than on canning, large numbers of hunting trips, or tinkering.
I also think this preference is somewhat unimaginative, and I often wonder if there are some cities out there that we'll look back on as the "1975 NYC"s and "SF"s of today. Will the Rust Belt attract a generation of artists? Philadelphia? Atlanta?

[WorkingRachel]

You might consider Chicago. Public transportation is good, it's relatively bike-friendly (few hills), and there are 2-flats, 3-flats, and 6-flats throughout the city. I believe it's much less expensive than NYC or SF, or at the very least you would get a more interesting neighborhood for your money. Logan Square, Wicker Park, Lincoln Square, Pilsen might be neighborhoods to check out.
I do get frustrated at its not being as cosmopolitan as NYC/London, etc., but it's not *too* far off in terms of cultural stuff. The literary scene is small but enthusiastic; my impression is that music, visual art are pretty good; film maybe less so but again, enthusiastic.
I am not at all sure about the availability of hunting, but I've sure seen plenty of deer in the local forest preserves.

[akratic]

I'm with jacob on the hidden costs of specialization, but food seems like a case where you're a lot better off transcripting for an hour or two and then buying a 50 lb bag of rice... or 10lbs of chicken breast... than trying to grow that much food yourself.
Why not just rent forever? I guess the duplex wins if you stay in one neighborhood for a long time, but being able to move from neighborhood to neighborhood in a city is a pretty awesome bonus.
Urban ERE doesn't seem that different from ERE anywhere else to me. Housing and food costs are up. Entertainment and transit costs are down. I'm planning on ERE in a big city.

[dpmorel]

I think New York is a great place to do ERE. The transportation system is arguably the best in the country (world?) especially given the price.
Also, its so dense there is always a "frugal" choice for anything - eating, coffee, shoes, etc... (except parking).
Lets also not forget about the crazy affordable culture - grosvernors island's free concerts, best museums in the world are pay what you want and so on.
And its so whacky, you are probably 1 out of 100,000 hunting, super frugal, future urban farmers. My favourite example of a huge sub-culture of a sub-culture is bike shorts, a mammoth sub-community for the bike community that likes to make short films... about biking.
Admittedly I just left New York and now live in a suburb just outside Toronto in a small little bungalow, so I feel the nostalgic ex-love for NYC. But honestly I spent slightly less in NYC than I do now, the huge spike of transportation cost living in most places outside New York and few other places where car culture is not a necessity I find outweighs the housing savings massively. You can always find a deal in New York to solve your problems.

[KevinW]

The city does force you to be tightly coupled in many areas, but the tradeoff is that you are forced to share capital resources in those areas. In the country you practically need your own motor vehicle, which is idle most of the time; in the city it's quite reasonable to share motor vehicles with your neighbors (bus, taxi, train), which are in service constantly. The same tradeoff holds for many other areas of life: utility service, sanitation, heating and cooling energy, green spaces, etc. So, while tight couplings are anti-ERE, resource sharing to make utilization approach 100% is pro-ERE.
Also, the density of the city brings more of everything within reach, and hence more of our idiosyncratic needs within reach: cobblers, discount grocers, etc.
IMO it's ideal to live in an urban area and adopt a "country" mindset. Take advantage of city facilities and resource sharing, but be self-sufficient in as many areas as you can. Grow some of your own food, fix stuff, etc. You can take self-sufficiency into the city but you can't take population density and public services into the country.
Finally, I think one should at least consider cities between the coasts. Just for grins, pull up prices for quadplexes in, I dunno, Cleveland or Omaha. It may blow your mind. You can look at any list of bike-friendly cities and find some great, inexpensive places to live.

[mikeBOS]

As long as we're trying to talk him out of NYC let me put a vote in for Albuquerque. Fun, youthful, counter-culture with an established music scene and a generally vibrant art scene, great bus-system, very bike friendly and getting better all the time, strong bike culture, growing light-rail and commuter rail system, large airport, large university. Cheap buildings throughout the city and cheap land right on the outskirts. There's good rabbit hunting all around the outskirts of the city and you can head up into the Sandia Mtns to get yourself an elk if you wanted, only a few miles away. You could also go skiing while you're up there. And the year-round weather isn't too bad except for a few hot spells in July, with mild winters.
Myself, I'm planning on taking the opposite approach. Keeping my eye out for a small, private plot of land within 10-15 miles of a train station that could take me into the city when I feel like getting a dose of "culture" maybe every six weeks or so. Hopefully I'll find something suitable somewhere along the Downeaster line that runs from Portland, ME to Boston, MA.

[JohnnyH]

@mikeBOS: excellent idea. I too like to travel to the city once a month or so, but not live there... I really like the train angle. I will add this variable to my search as well!