Number 1 "Numero Uno" Ichiban Most Liveable City (Portland: live in, statistics)

[lookinforahome]

Yea I see what you mean; although statistically the population is 513,000, in reality the immediate metropolitan area is more like 230,000.

[lrfox]

No one counted Scarborough in their individual count of the Portland area which is an additional 16,000 too.

But anyway, the point about the 513,000 being VERY misleading stands. It may be the "statistical" CSA population, but that CSA covers a large and very rural area. The Forbes article also states that population as simply, "Portland's Population" which is even more misleading because it doesn't mention that that figure is a CSA statistic which are VERY broad and often misleading (which is why I used the example of Boston's 8 million CSA figure as opposed to the MSA- Metropolitan Statistical Area- of about 4 Million which is far more accurate).

The most important thing is that Portland doesn't FEEL like a city of 500,000 (likely because, well, it isn't a city of 500,000). It feels like a city of 63,000. It becomes rural relatively quickly after you leave Portland's city limits (with the exception of crossing the Casco Bay Bridge into South Portland which is still built up) along the waterfront. It's not a sprawling metropolis (actually, most of the cities on the list aren't either; i.e. Peabody MA) and the article would sort of lead one to believe it is. Of course, the lack of size doesn't take anything away from Portland... it's just misleading in that regard.

[elston]

I am unsubscribing from my own post because instead of being a tribute to a wonderful city which has been recognized as such by a National Magazine ...... it has come down to a back and forth about demographics with the disclaimer....."not that there's anything wrong with that."

[K-Luv]

Originally Posted by lrfox

No one counted Scarborough in their individual count of the Portland area which is an additional 16,000 too.

But anyway, the point about the 513,000 being VERY misleading stands. It may be the "statistical" CSA population, but that CSA covers a large and very rural area. The Forbes article also states that population as simply, "Portland's Population" which is even more misleading because it doesn't mention that that figure is a CSA statistic which are VERY broad and often misleading (which is why I used the example of Boston's 8 million CSA figure as opposed to the MSA- Metropolitan Statistical Area- of about 4 Million which is far more accurate).

The most important thing is that Portland doesn't FEEL like a city of 500,000 (likely because, well, it isn't a city of 500,000). It feels like a city of 63,000. It becomes rural relatively quickly after you leave Portland's city limits (with the exception of crossing the Casco Bay Bridge into South Portland which is still built up) along the waterfront. It's not a sprawling metropolis (actually, most of the cities on the list aren't either; i.e. Peabody MA) and the article would sort of lead one to believe it is. Of course, the lack of size doesn't take anything away from Portland... it's just misleading in that regard.

Ha! I can't believe that I forgot about Scarborough...

Yeah, I do not think that Portland's size takes anything away from it, but personally, I think that its size adds to its appeal. Despite Portland's downsides, it does have a lot going for it and even though this place leaves things desired it still offers quite a lot. I have lived in and/or spent time in cities with a population twice the size (if not more) of Portland's that did not offer half the stuff that Portland does. Heck, Portland is a bustling metropolis when compared to St. Paul, MN.

Portland constantly makes it into top ten lists year after year, and why I generally agree (or at least offer no opinion on) with most of these placings I do, however, wonder about Forbes reasonings. I will agree that Portland is a livable city, but I wouldn't call it the most livable.

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by K-Luv

Ha! I can't believe that I forgot about Scarborough...

Yeah, I do not think that Portland's size takes anything away from it, but personally, I think that its size adds to its appeal. Despite Portland's downsides, it does have a lot going for it and even though this place leaves things desired it still offers quite a lot. I have lived in and/or spent time in cities with a population twice the size (if not more) of Portland's that did not offer half the stuff that Portland does. Heck, Portland is a bustling metropolis when compared to St. Paul, MN.

Portland constantly makes it into top ten lists year after year, and why I generally agree (or at least offer no opinion on) with most of these placings I do, however, wonder about Forbes reasonings. I will agree that Portland is a livable city, but I wouldn't call it the most livable.

This is exactly how I feel about it. No place is perfect, but Portland has a good deal of charm, activity and character for such a small town.

I also agree that the size of Portland adds to the attraction and I tend to agree with its placement on most of the lists it makes (including this Forbes one... Portland was one of the few cities on the list that didn't make me say, "huh?").

However, my problem with THIS list and (most other lists by Forbes) is that it's misleading. While Portland is certainly a bustling little city and one to be proud of, it's no city of 513,000 and Forbes starts off leading people astray by saying it is (no mention that that number is for two combined, very rural, metro areas).

I would NEVER dispute the info on the list claiming that Portland is a very livable city (though I still don't know if I'd call it the MOST livable city). It's just that this list (like just about every Forbes list before it) seems to miss the point and skimp on deciding factors. One of the biggest ones was cost of living vs. relative income (Portland C.O.L. is relatively high compared to average income... this is even MORE true in places like Worcester, Peabody and Bridgeport CT). Weather was a factor that was left out too... many of the higher ranking cities had pretty poor weather in the winter (again, Worcester, Bridgeport, Peabody, Little Rock, and Portland). Ease of access to alternate transit wasn't a factor, as were many others. It seems that they choose a few select categories to base the decisions for these lists on and they're relatively poor demonstrations of the reality of what they're trying to prove (i.e. "Most Dangerous City") and leave out a LOT of important info. To me, I think it would be VERY disadvantageous to look at one of these Forbes lists as anything more than entertainment.

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by elston

I am unsubscribing from my own post because instead of being a tribute to a wonderful city which has been recognized as such by a National Magazine ...... it has come down to a back and forth about demographics with the disclaimer....."not that there's anything wrong with that."

You're right. It got off topic and it shouldn't have.

I believe the disclaimer was intended (at least these were my intentions) to show that while I (we) question Forbes' reasoning and data usage, we don't deny that Portland is one of the cities that absolutely deserves the acclaim it receives on this and other lists.

Portland deserves all of the praise bestowed upon it by not just Forbes, but all sources. It's just that while Forbes is a "reputable" source, it's "Best", "Worst" and "Most" lists have MANY holes and flaws and many of those holes were evident in this most recent list (though again, with the exception of a strangely high population estimate, Portland wasn't one of them).

You are right though, the flaws in Forbes' selection process shouldn't overshadow the fact that Portland deserves the praise it has received.

[Raffie]

Well kiss your perfect city bye bye.

Now everyone knows and will want to go there.

[Sunday1]

Originally Posted by lrfox

"...The list (and data used to create the list) is VERY misleading. The 513,000 metro figure jumps out as an obvious question mark. The truth is, that that is the number for the Combined Statistical Area (CSA) which combines the metro population of the Portland area, Augusta area, Lewiston/Auburn area and Saco/Biddeford area. The number is essentially the entire population between Kittery and Augusta... hardly all part of the Portland metro area. To put it in perspective, Boston's metro area has about 4 million people... its CSA (Boston/Providence/Manchester) boosts that number up to nearly 8 million. The CSA is a misleading figure to use when estimating a city's size. It's really misleading to give the nation the idea that Portland is a city of over 500,000 just like it's misleading to make people think that Boston has about 8 million people..."

I agree! I've found the info from people here hugely helpful and the CSA info caused me to waste some time. Kittery for example, was initially on our list of metro area towns before Island Mermaid drew up some commute info for us from Brunswick.

[Sunday1]

Originally Posted by Raffie

Well kiss your perfect city bye bye.

Now everyone knows and will want to go there.

Not to worry. Money Mag's annual ranking has a much bigger circulation and no town in Maine was on their last Top 100 "Best Places" list. We'll see how it fares in 2009.

I personally don't give much credence to any of the lists having done a number of corporate relos in my life. I always look at them, though - and find their methodologies usually contain bigger holes than the ozone.

[oceanfit185]

I think everybody missed Westbrook, Windham, Standish, Gorham, Gray...