Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

cmajka8 t1_ithx2bh wrote

Rutland and Princeton are both pretty rural arent they? I dont think its a fair comparison to Worcester

20

NativeMasshole t1_iti7gc4 wrote

I'm honestly a bit confused here. Living in Holden or Sterling isn't really any cheaper than Worcester, while Paxton and Rutland are more rural so land is a bit cheaper. These towns aren't even really comparable to each other.

8

Emergency-War7360 t1_itiaofc wrote

I guess Holden is good if you work in worcester but it's a long way to anywhere East. Rutland and Princeton are rural though.

3

[deleted] OP t1_ithy3p3 wrote

[removed]

−7

cmajka8 t1_ithy9tw wrote

Yeah but what is there to do in Rutland? You cant compare a city to a suburb like Rutland

7

NovelNo87 t1_itibm05 wrote

I lived in Rutland for almost a year because I was having trouble finding an affordable apartment close to my job in the city. Not much to do and I spent most of my time out of town anyway, but I really liked the Rail trail and all other hiking trails that I could just walk to from my apartment. I found a lot of cool little known historic sites buried deep in the woods and learned a lot of local history. But long term it never would’ve worked out for me.

4

Radz12765 t1_itiq8ky wrote

Rutland is out there. Ashland is close to Framingham and closer to Rt9, 495, 90. So probably the longer commute from Rutland that makes is more affordable

4