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.
Speaking up on behalf of Des Moines, when was the last time you visited that city much less lived there?
If the answer is "never" on both counts, keep in mind the sayings that go "bigger is not necessarily better" or "don't knock it until you've tried it"!
And comparing one quality of life factor between Atlanta & Des Moines, take a guess at which city actually has 2 rivers & a small lake in it's downtown area... Hint: It's not Atlanta.
That's certainly your right but then also your loss, especially if you've never visited there before deciding to weigh in...
I'll also venture forth with the view that when people post comments about places they've probably never been to, it smacks of a sort of parochialism which I find regrettable & close-minded, especially when coming from people who live in large urban settings which supposedly should open our minds to all sorts of possibilities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huntsville_secede
Well you sure are making a lot of assumptions. First of all I've been to pretty much every major city and a lot of medium size / small towns, I've never been close-minded about exploring other possibilities.. I'm sure it's a fine town but for me it's a deal breaker as a place to live there because of 1) the lack of diversity 2) being in the middle of nowhere. I don't need to visit Des Moines specifically to know that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by atler8
May I point out that my first post of yesterday on this topic was in response to what could only be described as a snide comment directed at Des Moines and another city that came in ranked noticeably higher than did Atlanta in the survey cited as the thread topic.
I've seen plenty of such posts over the years when an urban place that is smaller or deemed less significant is judged in a survey to have some stronger attributes in terms of quality of life. The knee jerk reaction to outwrite diminish the worth of that usually smaller city is wrong-headed and that is my main point here.
I'll also say that what constitutes "...the middle of nowhere.." is a subjective viewpoint. As for example, someone in New York City may think that Atlanta is in the middle of nowhere. Given New York's close proximity to the metropolises of Philadelphia &/or Boston, the reality of how far it is from Atlanta to another major metro area lends an ease to understanding how that view could be held.
On the diversity point, our notions of what diversity is & our expectations of what constitutes it may be too strictly defined and need some retooling given our vast national ethnic mosaic that is constantly morphing. As for example, recalling a visit a decade ago with my friend to her large supermarket of choice in central Des Moines, I was amazed to find a surprisingly large section of goods specifically designed to meet the needs of the Bosnian community.
In terms of the op's cited source material, there are 2 responses that I'd recommend:
1. We can recognize that Atlanta's ranking at 57th in the survey points out that we have work to do in terms of quality of life issues and that we can react to that fact without resenting other places that may perform better.
2. We can be surprised by the overall results & probably should stay open to such surprises and be mindful that in judging places other than where we live, we really don't know what we don't know until we know it.
The nice part about living in America is that we're all entitled to our own opinions without owing others an explanation.
I tend to agree with Huntsville_secede. Being born and raised in a big city, I just simply prefer living in big cities. And part of it is for the reasons he stated (greater diversity, less isolation). As an African-American male, the reality is there are a lot of mid/small-size cities where I would struggle to find someone who could properly cut my hair or prepare food I would enjoy. Also, it's nice being able to have the ability to plan day trips to other nearby big cities if you get bored and want to try something new. There are many parts of the country (though maybe not necessarily Des Moines) where that's not an option.
All of that said, some other perfectly legitimate reasons why someone would prefer a big city are:
*Much better access to amenities (good luck finding anything other than generic retailers/fast food restaurants or finding museums/theatres in many small/mid-size cities).
*A much larger pool of decent job opportunities (many small/mid-size cities are one-trick company/college/military towns).
*Much better flight connectivity (small/mid-size cities are generally not airline hubs and you'll end up having to take connecting flights any time you want/need to travel).
None of this is intended to be a dig on places like Des Moines. Every individual has different wants/needs/desires depending on their background and their stage in life. Some folks prefer living in the country and can never see themselves living in a big city. That's their prerogative. But I'm not going to bash them for having their own preference like you seem to be doing with folks who prefer big cities. Another great thing about living in America is that with it being such a large country, there's an area that exists to accommodate every type of lifestyle.
EDIT: As far as the list itself, I think we all can agree it's flawed and should be taken with a grain of salt.
Last edited by citidata18; 06-16-2019 at 09:46 AM..
Given the size of Texas the population isn’t all that impressive.
It’s like Calif. being the most populous state. In that same land area the East Coast has more than 3 times as many people.
And saying jaw-juh, the traffic reporters in Dallas have a worse Southern accent than I do. (NC Native)
They say, “ on the Ellie, bee, jaaay, (LBJ) it’s a mess.”
LOL but just this month, the Texan accent was named the most attractive or all regional sounds. As far as population size/land area ratio, with regard to the eastern time zone, its a function of history too, i.e., places were settled in the east first due to European exploration. But the population center of the country is steadily moving westward and that's in part due to foreign immigration from Latin America and Asia. And from a density perspective, really, once one leaves metro Atlanta, Georgia may be even less dense than Texas because it has not other cities of size while Texas has five MSAs over 900,000 residents each
This is true, however most of Texas is fairly uninhabitable for large populations as after you get much further west than I-35 it quickly becomes desert, water scarcity, ect. Eastern Texas, or basically anything between I-35 and Louisiana however is quite dense and where the bulk of the population lives. The distances between the habital areas of Texas and Lousianna are actually only slightly larger than Georgia as a whole.
Whew, THIS^^ is totally without merit. Yes, the bulk of the State lives in the eastern half but let's consider first Georgia:
1. Approximately 65% of its residents live with 60 miles of downtown Atlanta. That area is about 8,376 sq miles. Georgia covers 59,425 sq. miles. So that's about 15% of the states total land area for 65% of its residents. Lets say I'm overly conservative and say its 10,000 square miles, then 65% of residents occupy 17% of the state. A great deal of that is due to jobs but one has to wonder why Savannah, Macon, Columbus and Augusta never attract more of the state's share of business and people? I know partly it's the mountainous terrain of northeast Georgia and that big ole swamp far south.
2. Now Texas
a. DFW - about 27% of the population:
b. Houston - about 25%;
c. San Anton - about 9%
d. Austin - about 8%.
That's about 69% of the state over four markets north central, southeast, and central. From the outer east side of DFW to Louisiana is 120 miles then from there due south to Port Arthur is 200 miles then 100 miles to Houston, then 220 miles to Dallas. That's an area where no large MSAs exists, all heavily wooded and bigger than Georgia in square miles. Two national forests are there.
The Texas Hill country, at 31,000 square miles, is pretty damn large, at half the size of Georgia, bordered on the east and southeast by San Antonio. It lacks any big cities west of Austin but has some great state parks, rivers and towns and is known for hunting and ranching (Tommy Lee Jones, Chipper Jones parents, to name a few have ranches there). https://www.kwsanantonio.com/news/8-...-hill-country/
The Rio Grand Valley, 4,900 square miles, is known for ranching and farming. The largest ranch in America, the King Ranch is there.
Amarillo and Lubbock - not desert but dry and big on Cattle ranching. The only desert like area is the far southwest by Big Bend National Park. Also, Texas Tech University is located there and a number of colleges, like UTEP, Texas A&M Rio Grande, San Angelo State, UT- Tyler, Midwestern U, Abilene Christian, Lamar U and Baylor aren't in big MSAs.
Midland/Odessa may be desert but its also, since 1923 has fueled much of America's energy needs producing billions of barrels of oil and trillions of natural gas. So we in Texas will GLADLY take that!
So while the population is skewed toward the "Texas Triangle", unlike Georgia, more spread-out.
Raleigh is a nice town, it's only downside being that it's just a bit boring. There's really nothing of note there. No defining restaraunts, no quirky neighborhoods, no highly rated museum, no iconic buildings, nothing. It's basically like one giant suburb on steroids. They do a little of everything well, but nothing great. Quality of life there is top notch as the whole place is manicured and safe, traffic is mostly managed well, and no school district is "horrible." That said, if you get bored of the strip malls and planned communities there's little respite - there's no trendy urban downtown or eclectic bohemian neighborhood to explore. Even the airport is that way - run well, efficient, visually pleasing yet just adequate in offerings and where you can fly directly.
I agree it’s just a big, boring suburb. It’s niche in America is what you said, a little bit of everything.
That’s why it’s a destination for young couples to raise families.
Affordable, beautiful beaches and mountains are 2 hr. and 5 hr. drives away.
D.C. and NYC are 4hr and 8hr trips by car.
It’s great for families mostly.
The universities keep the area in step with the world & are where some quirky-ness can be found.
Carrboro(next to Chapel Hill) and Durham are somewhat crunchy and alt.
It’s just a smaller metro so that stuff is hard to find.
Definitely the most liberal area of NC except for Asheville.
A taste of all 4 seasons.
It’s a good compromise of having lots of variety within reach, but nothing all that remarkable itself.
Though Downtown Raleigh was recently named in top 10 foodie scene & has been featured in The NY Times in last few years.
LOL but just this month, the Texan accent was named the most attractive or all regional sounds. As far as population size/land area ratio, with regard to the eastern time zone, its a function of history too, i.e., places were settled in the east first due to European exploration. But the population center of the country is steadily moving westward and that's in part due to foreign immigration from Latin America and Asia. And from a density perspective, really, once one leaves metro Atlanta, Georgia may be even less dense than Texas because it has not other cities of size while Texas has five MSAs over 900,000 residents each
Just look at the lights in the US at night from space, and you’ll see that the West has got a lot of work to do. The desert, exhausted aquifers & a tapped out Colorado River will throttle population growth in the West.
Georgia and the states touching Georgia are home to 55 million people and all are still growing albeit Alabama may be the slowest. That more than the population of the entire West Coast.
And the best part is those 55 million are within easy driving distance to Atlanta for weekend trips. Miami is the furthest and a 10 hour drive.
In that respect, West Coast cities are quite isolated compared to the East Coast.
I do miss the wide open spaces of the West and Georgia is the most primitive of the highly populated states.
I hail from NC which is a top-tier state in every respect but Atlanta is the city I love and where I want to be.
(And that’s after 10 years in NYC, 5 in LA, and a couple of years in Boston and NJ.)
Just look at the lights in the US at night from space, and you’ll see that the West has got a lot of work to do. The desert, exhausted aquifers & a tapped out Colorado River will throttle population growth in the West.
Georgia and the states touching Georgia are home to 55 million people and all are still growing albeit Alabama may be the slowest. That more than the population of the entire West Coast.
And the best part is those 55 million are within easy driving distance to Atlanta for weekend trips. Miami is the furthest and a 10 hour drive.
In that respect, West Coast cities are quite isolated compared to the East Coast.
I do miss the wide open spaces of the West and Georgia is the most primitive of the highly populated states.
I hail from NC which is a top-tier state in every respect but Atlanta is the city I love and where I want to be.
(And that’s after 10 years in NYC, 5 in LA, and a couple of years in Boston and NJ.)
True, the WC is more isolated, especially, with the Mountain ranges (Rockies, Sierra, Cascades) BUT the growth the last generation leans west of the Mississippi given the trade we do with Asia. I do agree water is the biggest issue they have and will slow progress, especially with Texas openly wooing companies from there, having a big seaport of its own and two big airlines based in the Lone Star state.
If I were to live in the SE, I strongly believe Tennessee, NC and Georgia have the best overall profiles (economy, quality of life). Florida, despite its huge population is the most environmentally teetering state due to its exposure to Hurricanes, flat, sea-level elevation, and soft soil. Also, for whatever reasons, it seems to lack an economic profile as high as one thinks - 17 Fortune 500 companies vs. 16 for Georgia which has half the population and 11 for NC (same population as Georgia) and 54 in Texas which is about 1/3 larger. Alabama has made some big strides the last 20 years starting with the Mercedes Benz plant but its far right politics occasionally halt progress.
I cant help but wonder, if money were no issue for anyone how many people would actually choose to stay in Atlanta? I have to be honest and say I definitely wouldn't
I cant help but wonder, if money were no issue for anyone how many people would actually choose to stay in Atlanta? I have to be honest and say I definitely wouldn't
I would.
The short winter, beautiful green suburban landscape , low stress including driving to run errands, and a populace with a big city mentality, and a large gay community....
is a combination you are hard pressed to find elsewhere.
New York's weather is rainy and lousy much of the year, and in LA the only time you can drive to run errands is 8am on Sat. or Sun. morning.
The short winter, beautiful green suburban landscape , low stress including driving to run errands, and a populace with a big city mentality, and a large gay community....
is a combination you are hard pressed to find elsewhere.
New York's weather is rainy and lousy much of the year, and in LA the only time you can drive to run errands is 8am on Sat. or Sun. morning.
I would too. If I wanted to I could have moved back to the property I owned in San Diego that I was renting out, but instead I sold it. Climate is one of the main perks, although winters have been a little too short and warm in recent years. People are friendly for the most part, although there's lots of transplants, and there's plenty to do. The job market is pretty good too, especially for the IT field. Overall, it has a pretty good quality of life for a relatively low cost of living. Really the only gripe is the lack of public transportation and alternative freeways. If money were a factor, I would have stayed in Florida since it's even cheaper.
The short winter, beautiful green suburban landscape , low stress including driving to run errands, and a populace with a big city mentality, and a large gay community....
is a combination you are hard pressed to find elsewhere.
New York's weather is rainy and lousy much of the year, and in LA the only time you can drive to run errands is 8am on Sat. or Sun. morning.
I dont recall saying it had to be somewhere in the states. I said if money were no option meaning you could live anywhere you chose, would you stay here. For me that would be a definite no.
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.
