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.
Which is the best overall performing city? There are so many factors in performance I choose not to create those parameters myself. But I will note that one city, as incredibly expensive as it is, still draws the most people and the most interest. New York is still very much king of America and buzzes like no other city. God bless that beautiful mess and all its warts...there is no bigger cultural epicenter in the western world!
Or maybe you prefer Chicago's performance, with its core tallness and its Midwest, ahem, charm and "friendliness"...but then again L.A. has gorgeous weather and hot beach babes, an unmatched pop entertainment industry and musical heritage, actual scenic natural beauty...especially for such a giant suburb ...Or is it Houston? Houston has a few drawbacks of its own...lack of public transportation, humid summers, awkward city planning, and traffic snarls..but its very affordable, friendly, fairly cultured, and renewing itself.
What should be noted is how these largest cities actually rate PERFORMANCE wise, on such things as:
education/scools
literacy
climate/ability to plan
public transportation
affordability (not just rent or mortgage)
employment opportunities
free city services
unique culture
OUTDOOR resources and recreation close to city
Etc. Etc.
Chicago for example, (you knew i would go there) as seen on first impression is ranked quite positive on C-D, but is ranked low in overall city performance (Google "Chicago ranks low" "poorly" ) or there are several sites/blogs listing these performance issues with various cities.
Not questioning New York's dominance, but does the city itself perform up to high standards for the average citizen? I think a better measure of a community is the one where perhaps the schools teach important life concepts like acceptence and discipline...that there are people in this world who perform better at certain,sometimes more desirable things. And many times, those people do not live in or near large cities or in good neighborhoods. It doesn't make them better or worse humans, just more unique to what they enjoy or are good at. These cities claim to be all about variety of
experience and diversity, but those wonderful things can also be enjoyed and learned about indirectly, in a more balanced way, by not living in a huge city which can also beat you into a conformity and segragation of a different kind.
If you whip your credit card or cash out to eat every other night at a
restaurant, or to take in a poetry slam, or a blues gig...or whatever...you might feel like you is living...but after a while it doesnt seem so special. So, as a society, do we really want to keep directing and concentrating so much wealth and power to these concentrated areas of mostly entertainment, corporatism, and public dumbing down? Keep in mind, cities like Chicago and LA pump out hudreds of thousands of illiterate students, and all the money that should go to help starving little girls in these cities ends up where? In corporate hands, in corrupt officials hands, in lawmakers hands...or the gangbangers hands...city folk. Is this true performance? Or are smaller places with better education the answer? I am a product of Chicago schools and proud, but come on already! Are Chicago and New York the equivelent of the cocky rabbit,in the story of the Tortoise and the Hare? They are the fast slick rabbits, more talented at racing, but also more cocky, more greedy. And that trips people up more times than it doesn't.
I think New York must have the magic combination of performance and desirability since it has the numbers.
Last edited by dosequis man; 10-05-2011 at 10:27 AM..
Admittedly, I'm not familiar with Houston (and have no plans to be), but for the top three, I'd still choose New York. I believe it's a model for all mega-tropoli with its transformation from crime-ridden hellhole to desirable location to live, work, play and visit. LA has many issues with schools and gang life, which (and I'm very pro-immigration in principle) are affected by unchecked migration. Chicago has its long history of ingrained political corruption which has yet to be reformed, as well as segregated communities which allow its problems to fester (though I hear crime & racial segregation are not quite as bad as 20-30 years ago).
Man keep Houston out of these threads. Especially since you have people that hate Houston to seize the opportunity to bash the place as its obvious that its not a fit with the top three. I already see that its been done in thus thread.
I will play devils advocate. If New York is the clear winner on performance, why is basic quality of life so poor for so many? A tiny apartment is over $1000 a month. Look at Chicago too, highest sales tax, gas prices, worst traffic, most segregated.. etc. Is the extra $15,000 salary of the average resident really making up for all this? Or are we luring people to the cities to increase the numbers of hours they must work to be able to afford that shiny lifestyle that is propogated by big business and criminal government.
Man keep Houston out of these threads. Especially since you have people that hate Houston to seize the opportunity to bash the place as its obvious that its not a fit with the top three. I already see that its been done in thus thread.
I am curious what your criteria for city performance is? IS it truly just a population contest? Cultural contest perhaps? Because there are some major quality of life issues with Chicago and New York...and some very key areas where people continue to choose Houston. Its not as well planned, but it can change like any others did, and is!
I will play devils advocate. If New York is the clear winner on performance, why is basic quality of life so poor for so many? A tiny apartment is over $1000 a month. Look at Chicago too, highest sales tax, gas prices, worst traffic, most segregated.. etc. Is the extra $15,000 salary of the average resident really making up for all this? Or are we luring people to the cities to increase the numbers of hours they must work to be able to afford that shiny lifestyle that is propogated by big business and criminal government.
It's the same in Houston. Quality of life is extremely poor for many.
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.
...Or is it Houston? Houston has a few drawbacks of its own...lack of public transportation, humid summers, awkward city planning, and traffic snarls..but its very affordable, friendly, fairly cultured, and renewing itself.
Is this true performance? Or are smaller places with better education the answer? I am a product of Chicago schools and proud, but come on already! Are Chicago and New York the equivelent of the cocky rabbit,in the story of the Tortoise and the Hare? They are the fast slick rabbits, more talented at racing, but also more cocky, more greedy. And that trips people up more times than it doesn't. 