Anonymous wrote:I don't think it matters that much. I think whether they play together or get along will depend much more on their personalities than on age gap.
I had a 3.5 age gap (I was aiming for 2.5 but two miscarriages killed that plan). I didn't think they would play together but they did, quite a bit. When they did not, I attribute mostly to them being different genders and having very different interests. They get along great and almost never fight -- but again, just luck of the draw and not much to do with spacing.
For you, I think 3 will be easier in the beginning because your older will be a little more independent. But later on life, 2 may be easier because there will more years they will be in the same school and they will generally be i the same stage of childhood at the same time.
+1. This is so true! My kids are 2 years apart and it’s great because they like a lot of the same things and play together well. But I think this is more due to their personalities and interests than their age gap. However, it was REALLY hard early on, for the first year or so of our 2nd child’s life we were just surviving but having a 2 year old and newborn is not easy! I think it would’ve been easier to have a 3 year old and newborn bc at age 3 our son was at least potty trained, very verbal, going to preschool a couple days per week, could do a few things for himself whereas at age 2 he was kind of still a baby himself (in diapers, in a crib, using a pacifier, etc. so it felt like we had 2 babies early on which was tough.
Anyway, I think either age gap is fine and having 2 kids is great but hard no matter the age gap.