General Question

elenamillaa's avatar

Would you rather live in a cheap town with nothing to do or an expensive town with everything to do? Why?

Asked by elenamillaa (149 points ) February 28th, 2009

I basically have the first half of my question as a problem. On occasion, my friends and I go downtown for some fun, but it’s so damn expensive. Just wanted some opinions.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

12 Answers

Darwin's avatar

I choose to live in a “cheap town with nothing to do.” I am retired on a limited income and so can’t afford an expensive town. However, I have also found that when people say there is “nothing to do” they either mean “nothing that I want to do” or they basically haven’t really looked around.

I find there are always things to do, outside of the things I do at home. These things range from eating out to seeing an independent film to listening to a new band to free concerts of several types at several different venues. There are also art shows, the poetry slam, surfing and fishing, and an amazing array of stuff to do.

marinelife's avatar

Even in an expensive town, there are usually some fun and cheap things to do.

Parks.
Special free days and hours at museums (even the great MOMA in NYC).
Some historic houses and sites are cheap or free.
Free concerts.

funkyfest's avatar

I’ve mostly lived in expensive towns with shit to do, and lately I’ve been having a lot of trouble finding things to do that don’t involve spending money. I think towns with “nothing” to do are great because often times they are catalysts for creativity. And there’s always nature. But do keep in mind I currently live in Manhattan and that I haven’t done the small town thing so I might feel differently if I were in the opposite position. I guess it’s best to experience both.

arnbev959's avatar

I live in a fairly expensive town, with lots to do. My grandfather has a house out in the sticks, where there is lots to do, but of a different kind. I prefer the slow, quiet country; but I’m glad to live in a busy place now. I’d rather grow up in the expensive town with everything to do, but move to the cheap town with “nothing to do” later on in life.

AstroChuck's avatar

Since you didn’t offer a moderately priced town with a few things to do, I’ll take the latter choice.

Sueanne_Tremendous's avatar

I’ll take Milwaukee. Inexpensive town with plenty to do. However, being that is not an option in regards to this question, I’ll echo Chuckie and take the latter.

Why? If there’s plenty to do chances are people from far away will come and drop big bucks in your city thereby allowing all the fun places in your town to stay open so that when you save enough money you can go enjoy them too.

cyndyh's avatar

There’s usually a lot to do anywhere you go. I’ve lived in a lot of places growing up and there are pluses and minuses everywhere. Given only your two choices I’d pick “expensive with everything” as well.

AlfredaPrufrock's avatar

It’s not that expensive towns actually have “something to do” as it is they have “places to go to be entertained.” There’s a difference. Small inexpensive places where people take the initiative to create “something to do” can be a lot more fun. The organizing of things to do becomes something to do in itself.

Judi's avatar

I have homes in both. Luckily, the cheap town is also where my grand babies live, so I heart is there, but if not, I would be in Orange County, CA full time. It may be expensive but you never need your heat or air conditioning, and the beach is free.

essieness's avatar

I think I’d rather live in an expensive town with lots to do because you’re more likely to run across free things to do… outdoor concerts, festivals, and so on.

wundayatta's avatar

I’ll take the expensive town, because actually, it probably isn’t as expensive as you think, and your cheap town probably isn’t as cheap as you think.

Massing a population in a small area is more efficient, in terms of the environment and economy, and use of resources. Houses are built next to each other, reducing the amount of fuel used to heat. There is public transportation, reducing the cost of travel. You don’t even need a car, and if you do, there are always the car-share companies.

Your opportunity for quality education is better and you have many more options (although there are also more bad options). There is help nearby at all times.

It isn’t just the accessibility of entertainment. It is a whole host of other things. And, as I said, the amount of resources per person in the city is probably much lower than the amount of resources per person in the country. Ever wonder why poverty rates are so much higher in rural areas? Perhaps they spend so much more on basic needs that they have nothing left for anything fun.

FutureMemory's avatar

Although living in a cheap town will save you money, the associated boredom incurs a type of debt that money can’t ‘pay off’.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther