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.
I think Walkability and a robust Public Transportation network kind of go hand in hand. Good public transportation encourages for people to get by on foot, and for businesses to develop at street corners near transit stops, eliminating massive surface parking lots. Anyway...
My 3, Business & Finance, Higher Education, and Public Transportation.
All major world class cities have this, barring LA, the outlier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccm123
Business & finance, higher education and cultural institutions. These three are very attractive to “knowledge workers.” Many of the other attributes on the list are also important.
In no particular order, parks and recreation, higher education, and cultural institutions.
Business is important, but if you have higher education (and cultural institutions) that usually means a robust economy.
Walkability is nice, but public transportation doesn’t mean squat. Even when we’re in NYC, or all the times I’ve been in Europe, I’m usually in cabs way more than subways/trains.
Location: Miami (prev. NY, Atlanta, SF, OC and San Diego)
7,409 posts, read 6,540,013 times
Reputation: 6676
I moved to my current city for its entertainment and nightlife. Dining was not listed as an option on this thread so I will go with cultural institutions as the third choice (I could have easily gone with walkability, shopping and….attractive people, lol). Sports IS important and it builds community spirit, civic pride and bonding.
Attractive people - This one seems purely imaginative - I mean what qualifies as attractive and ugly? Every city over 10,000 people will have beautiful young men and women. If you mean dressed well, are athletic/fit and take care of themselves, I guess that is a small factor, but it isn't going to really move the needle. Miami has hotter people than New York but the weight of this variable is so small... but what's even less significant:
Sounds like you're talking about conventional attractiveness here, but if we're considering people that are exceptionally attractive (as in having an exotic, multinational look--they could go anywhere in the world and be considered beautiful), these types tend to be concentrated in cities that have world class status: NYC, LA, Miami, London, Paris...You are absolutely not going to find these people in every small town or city.
1. Walkability (the most important).
2. Public Transportation (super important).
3. Entertainment (sports, date, bar, foodie scene)
4. Cultural Institutions.
5. Business.
Cities without the first two are just flyover suburban hellscapes. Cities without the last one are depressed and crime ridden.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,550 posts, read 81,103,317 times
Reputation: 57750
I have no interest in our city being called "world class" in anything. So far we have been named with several accolades by various sources, and it's only served to make it more crowded, with worse traffic as more people want to move here.
For me, public transportation is No. 1. It's the lifeblood of the city, and a world-class city with world-class lifeblood needs a world-class public transportation system. I would expand this to include airports. No. 2 is cultural institutions. After all, most cities have art museums of some sort or another, but part of what makes New York and London and Paris world-class cities are their superb museums and other cultural institutions. In third place I put business, because a thriving economy makes all the rest of it possible.
I'm fine having attractive people in my city, but not too attractive, or else I'll stand out all the more, and not in a good way.
Why? The obesity rates pan this out. When I was in Houston, I had to drive just to get to the grocery store literally across the street from my apartment complex, and I was in the Montrose area. Many areas of those cities are actively hostile to pedestrians.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,550 posts, read 81,103,317 times
Reputation: 57750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guineas
Why? The obesity rates pan this out. When I was in Houston, I had to drive just to get to the grocery store literally across the street from my apartment complex, and I was in the Montrose area. Many areas of those cities are actively hostile to pedestrians.
Our city of 65,000 has public transit (buses) only along the main arterial. People have to drive to the park & ride to catch it, in my case over a mile with steep hills. Still, any evening rain or shine, there are people walking, many with their dogs all around the city, just for the exercise. With only 3 small strip malls, only those few people living in apartments near them can walk, again for most it's at least 1-5 miles to the nearest store or restaurant. Lack of walkability does not in itself cause obesity. Though it is at 15% here according to the county health department, that's much lower than King County or the State of Washington.
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.
