U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Unread 03-20-2011, 02:18 PM
 
Location: Costa Mesa
151 posts, read 16,186 times
Reputation: 29
L.A. is the best

the best weather, it has beaches, Ski resorts, theme parks, Nightlife, shopping, LA has everything
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Unread 03-20-2011, 03:50 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
6,763 posts, read 7,775,927 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAjorge View Post
L.A. is the best

the best weather, it has beaches, Ski resorts, theme parks, Nightlife, shopping, LA has everything
While this is true, I think everybody is missing the point.

It's not about the size of the city or what it offers. I am taking it one step further than that.

For example, I live in the DC area, an area that offers a ton of things to do and see. But from what I have seen, people don't go out and do or see thing things at a very high rate because of the time and cost involved. Most just followed a job here and just do a daily grind of commuting and working.

It's already so expensive to live here that there is little discretionary income left for many residents despite average high incomes.

Traffic and getting around really compounds things. Let's say you work 8 hours, but you have a 1-2 hour commute each way. And unless you live in DC near a metro station and work near one, commutes are long. I commuted from Germantown to Silver Spring (not a long distance) for a year and from door to door it's an hour plus (driving or transit). So by the time you get home are you going to be in the mood to take the family back out and catch a Nats game or even have time without taking a half day off work? And it's the same thing without the family as single people and what not are just as inclined to say, no to going to a weeknight ballgame for the same reasons.

Now you can say; if you didn't live in the suburbs, or you can say that you can just go straight to the game after work. You can, and people do. But of the 6 million people that live in DC, most are going to be in the situation of living in Germontown.

But in a city like Denver or Minneapolis or St Louis. You are home in 30 minutes and can be right back downtown in another 30 minutes making going to a weeknight baseball game practical for an average metro area resident. Then you are back home before 1 am too and can work the next morning and if you live in the city, you actually have enought money in the bank to afford a Cards ticket!

Then there is the cost. I can take a family of four to a Blues game for 20 bucks each. But it cost 4 times that to see a Caps game. My income is not four times what it would be in St Louis. So it would simply mean far fewer hockey games, but even if you do go, you once again have that time factor. You have to take a half day off work.

The same can be said for going to a Broadway play, festival etc.

Speaking of festivals. We went to the 4th of July festival in DC and what a massive disappointment that was. Kansas City puts on fireworks shows that are 2-3 times as impressive and it doesn't take 2-3 hours to get on a metro train after the event, so in many cases, things are highly overrated and just assumed better because, well it's a big city on the coast!

Having said that, I rated DC third because it has so much to do that it outweighs these negatives when compared to a lot of metros.

But to me it doesn't matter if you are single or have a family. I rank quality of life by how well one can take advantage of it. In Denver for example, it's very easy to take bikes on transit. In DC it's nearly impossible to incorporate bikes with metro unless you really plan things out.

It's all the little things like that that add up to my opinion of quality of life. I guess everybody has different opinions, but that's what I based that list on. Not just how a fat suburban family can enjoy a metro area. (trust me, I'm about as urban minded as one gets). Thanks for all the constructive replies though!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 03-20-2011, 07:39 PM
 
1,095 posts, read 1,005,643 times
Reputation: 253
East coast's ignorancy! No San Jose on the list. Just like the ignorant east coast media corporations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 03-22-2011, 10:30 AM
 
Location: Clayton, MO
1,517 posts, read 1,779,667 times
Reputation: 405
Why all the confusion over the work 'livable?' I would equate the word QOL.

In my opinion, my quality of life in St. Louis is much higher than it would be in a much larger city. I have all of the big city amenities at my doorstep, without the traffic and inflated pricing on the coasts. If I moved to Chicago, LA, or (insert large city here) I wouldn't be able to afford a 2bed/2bath 1500 sq ft historic rehab condo in the heart of midtown. I just wouldn't. 2nd tier cities are where it's at in my opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 05-24-2013, 07:52 AM
 
1,764 posts, read 913,815 times
Reputation: 1702
OMG. I clicked the link. The article is AWESOME.

By Awesome I mean they picked Honolulu as #30 overall (in the world), picked vancouver Canada as #1 (who wants to live up there, in the cold?), and picked DETROIT at #40. Yes, the city that was decimated and left with 25% unemployment, massive housing price crashes, soaring crime rates, and racial tensions. Detroit at 40. Detroit... had one of the highest rankings of any U.S. city. Why wouldn't anyone want to live there?

Livability -- the reason you turn down a job transfer to Hawaii and ask for one to Vancouver.

This list has about the same level of quality and due diligence as the weather channel's list-making intern.

Edit: A real list with American cities would show respectable rankings for Honolulu, San Diego, Denver, Seattle, Houston(massive traffic but low COL), Dallas, and Atlanta. Several cities like St. Louis would have a hard time showing up unless they redid their rankings based on greater metro areas because the best areas are farther out from the core of the city. If they adjust to remove cold weather, I can see Minneapolis moving off the list. If they ignore cold winters, then it has to be on there. (They put Vancouver at the top) If they left NYC/San Fran/DC off the list because they factor in commute time and COL, I could see that making sense. Those cities certainly have some nice qualities, but I'd expect "liveability" to include strong adjustments to the scores for commutes/COL (which would drive down rankings for much of the east coast). Chicago/LA also get nailed by COL/commute.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 05-24-2013, 08:01 AM
 
Location: Ohio-Florida- New Jersey
151 posts, read 82,557 times
Reputation: 195
Livable to me means a city that has a good amount of amenities/jobs and where you don't need to pay a small fortunate to live in a studio apartment.

A city with terrible traffic/congestion problems or that is plagued by social issues would be excluded from my list.

In no particular order I would say:

Pittsburgh, PA
Columbus, OH
Austin, TX
Indianapolis, IN
Fort Worth, TX
Denver, CO
Nashville, TN
Minneapolis, MN
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 05-24-2013, 08:20 AM
 
Location: Columbus, central city
1,224 posts, read 2,703,339 times
Reputation: 603
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye614 View Post
Livable to me means a city that has a good amount of amenities/jobs and where you don't need to pay a small fortunate to live in a studio apartment.

A city with terrible traffic/congestion problems or that is plagued by social issues would be excluded from my list.

In no particular order I would say:

Pittsburgh, PA
Columbus, OH
Austin, TX
Indianapolis, IN
Fort Worth, TX
Denver, CO
Nashville, TN
Minneapolis, MN

This is a very good list. Columbus Pittsburgh and Indianapolis would be the most liveable (large cities) in the NE and midwest
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 05-24-2013, 08:23 AM
 
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
1,284 posts, read 1,036,029 times
Reputation: 1081
I would include things like air quality, crime, access to healthcare, sunny days, green space/access to parks, etc to a list of metrics that determine livability. An educated population, or at least access to quality education would to me be a big indicator as well.

I like Buckeye's list, I would also include throw in Seattle, Boston, and Kansas City off the top of my head.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 05-24-2013, 09:14 AM
 
Location: Syracuse, NY
1,486 posts, read 569,996 times
Reputation: 887
I'm sick of Pittsburgh's livability hype. If the area is so livable, all those old folks whose deaths are keeping the population down would have attempted to live longer.

Last edited by SyraBrian; 05-24-2013 at 09:44 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 05-24-2013, 10:20 AM
 
18 posts, read 13,233 times
Reputation: 29
Clicked on this thinking it would have some useful discussion. Thanks to the OP for the effort and for taking the time to provide his insights. People who followed up by trying to shoot this thread down, boo on you.
I don't have enough years left in my life to spend enough time in each of these places to formulate a consensus on which city would best suit my needs so folks who do have some experience, and take the time to editorialize about it are number one in my book.

Granted, it's all opinion based but that is really all you will ever get from reading others' accounts and views on anything. Fortunately, if crime is an important consideration for you and the reviewer doesn't make mention of it then you know to temper his/her comments with some additional reading. Of course, the same goes for anytime you have someone denigrate with the word "ignorant" then you can bet that was penned by a minority with a chip and, if you aren't in that category, then the post will likely bear little fruit for you.

For me, I have been considering and researching Boise and was a little surprised it had not been yet mentioned. Anyone? Bueller?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $74,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:22 PM.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top