CNN Money has released their Top 100 Cities to Live.
These lists always make me laugh. It seems that every place I have lived in has claimed that it has won the “top place to live in FOOBAR magazine”.
However, the lists show me the statistical view of things. It shows that it is better to live in a suburb than an actual city.
For example, I think that it is a lot nicer to live in Boulder, CO than Westminster, CO. However, the “price” amount of the equation will knock Westminster up in the rankings.
How can great cities such as NYC and San Fran not be anywhere to be seen on these lists? They may not be for everyone, but they have a lot going for them and I think I would prefer them to: Olathe, KS, West Bloomfield , MI, Richardson, TX, or Gilbert, AZ for examples (no offense to those cities).
July 18th, 2006 at 1:18 am
San Francisco remains one of my favorite places — but I’d still rather live here in Olathe, KS (yes, it’s true) than there. Why? One big reason is our 1800 sq.ft. house for which we paid $120K nine years ago. Another is that our daughter’s elementary school is about three blocks away, and we can walk to it without crossing a major street.
July 18th, 2006 at 8:31 am
The main point is that you see towns that statistically have great scores (low crime etc) and often have bigger cities right next to them which can have a lot more crime.
Statistics often do not tell the entire picture, and it would be nicer for these indexes to talk about cities for different archetypes (instead of having you go through and input your preferences)
Dion
July 20th, 2008 at 3:45 am
thanks for your share.