Sorry for the terrible title. So the quick and dirty question: If you are a home body type of person, is it in any way advantageous to relocate to a place where there are things to do outside the home (even if you never intend to do those things)? Think of it as the "New Yorker Problem" where someone could live in NYC all their life and never feel it necessary to go see the touristy things the locale has to offer. But to expand on that, would that person then be fine in a less exciting city if employment and family aren't considerations? If they are mostly traveling between work and home with occasional shopping and dining, aren't they better off living some place with less congestion and cost of living? They could save money on taxes and housing if they moved to some place less exciting right? This is something I have been mulling over in my head for a while. I live in one of the most unremarkable states in the country, but used to travel all around for work. I suppose my personality is such a way that I felt like most places are the same when you boil it down to how we live life 95% of the time. We work, we eat, we sleep. Maybe throw in parenting duties if you have kids or going to the gym if you are into fitness. That seems like 95% of the equation. The remaining 5% would be vacations, weekend recreation, visiting attractions, spending free time with friends and family, etc. I have been trying to make the case that I should move somewhere exciting but I know that once I settle in, I would just spend most of my time at home doing automotive things. I couldn't see myself driving to the mountains every weekend if I lived in Colorado, or swimming at the beach once a week if I lived on a coast. Is my assessment too left brained? I know there are aesthetic benefits of living some place like near a coastline, but don't people in those places get desensitized to that over time anyway? How many people live in Hawaii but sit around at home, or how many people live in Denver and have never gone skiing?