Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
Forget the rankings. Not here to brag it up. In fact, my 2 favorite cities ranked 1st and last, so go figure. lol!
I'm more interested in the facts and figures that are compiled here. This study is that it gives an exact count for the following features/characteristics/amenities. In what's usually the most debated of all topics, this is a pretty good start.
Bars:
Restaurants:
Museums:
Libraries:
Pro sports teams:
Park acres per 1,000 residents:
Colleges:
Percent with graduate degree:
Median household income:
Percent unemployed:
Methodology:
It's impossible to say what's "best" for everyone, of course. But where's the fun in not trying? Welcome to Businessweek.com’s second America’s Best Cities ranking. With assistance from Bloomberg Rankings, Businessweek.com evaluated 100 of the country’s largest cities based on leisure attributes (the number of restaurants, bars, libraries, museums, professional sports teams, and park acres by population); educational attributes (public school performance, the number of colleges, and graduate degree holders), economic factors (2011 income and June and July 2012 unemployment), crime, and air quality. Major professional league and minor league teams, as well as U.S.-based teams belonging to international leagues in that city were included. The greatest weighting was placed on leisure amenities, followed by educational metrics and economic metrics, and then crime and air quality. The data come from Onboard Informatics, except for park acreage, which comes from the Trust for Public Land. As the methodology has changed since the 2011 ranking, a city’s rise or fall compared with last year does not suggest that it has gotten “better” or “worse.”
We all know you are here to brag about SF as it's pretty much the only time you post. But what is with them showing 50 cities as a slideshow? Ridiculous. Just list them already.
The picture they used of San Francisco was so beautiful but it came in both first and last.
Yeah, that's a gorgeous angle.
Anyways, like I said in the OP, I didn't want this to be about SF or the ranking per se, what really wanted to hone in on is the data, like # of bars and restaurants of some of these cities that might not be so easy to find elsewhere.
NYC is a monster with 1220 bars and 22,320 restaurants. Chicago is a beast with 807 bars and 6,438 restaurants. Houston is impressive with 549 bars and 5,549 restaurants. Philly is decent at 400 bars and 3,821 restaurants. Boston is OK at 136 bars and 2,064 restaurants. DC similar to Boston at 134 bars and 2066 restaurants. San Diego is underated at 189 bars and 3,126 restaurants.
LA with 393 bars is kinda low for a city its size. 8,305 restaurants within city limits is pretty awesome though. SF with 394 bars and 3,430 restaurants might be the per capital champ. Which is nice I guess, but it's really about quality that counts for me IMO.
Things like the number of museums, colleges, libraries can also be compared with this info. The usual suspects come out on top, but there are some surprises. That's why I brought this list to the table.
Location: Baghdad by the Bay (San Francisco, California)
3,530 posts, read 5,139,312 times
Reputation: 3145
It's not only the per capita thing that's driving SF. It's the area thing. This is about city limits and SF occupies about 1/2 the area of just the inner Loop of Houston. SF's city limits are uniquely limited by water, which makes its number, in under 49 square miles, incredibly dense and impressive.
We all know you are here to brag about SF as it's pretty much the only time you post. But what is with them showing 50 cities as a slideshow? Ridiculous. Just list them already.
I don't know, my 5 favorites are San Francisco, Los Angeles, Houston, Tucson and San Diego
My methodology is probably different than most peoples..... I like to feel a certain vibe and feel at home around the people and these cities make me feel the most at home
I could care less about nightlife diversity, public trans etc.
Everyone is probably different I would guess in this one regard
Nice to see Indianapolis score better than Dallas/Charlotte/Tulsa
However the Unemployment ranking for Indianapolis is wrong. its not 8.9% its 7.5%
big difference.
I wonder how Nashville is high on the list. SF is definitely a very nice place. After visiting it, I know its the fact. They have not just many bars, restaurants but also a wide variety of cafes or coffee houses. You won't see that much coffee/pastry/bakery places in Chicago.
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
