Study: Philly One of the Worst Cities to Raise a Family (Philadelphia: real estate, violent crime)

[kyb01]

Originally Posted by 1ondoner

I'd move to Frisco, TX in a heartbeat. Actually before moving to Philly I was pursuing a job opening in Dallas metro that did not materialize.

Not sure how Palo Alto is ranked 3rd for affordability. The best towns to live in are in the heartland. They are very affordable and relatively stress free. If you are oozing $$, CA is the best state.

See, that's the lifestyle you like and that's fine. But you, habitually, pontificate on how superior it is. It comes off as self-righteous prattle even if that is not your intent.

I've spent enough time in Scottsbluff, Alliance, and larger, Lincoln, NE. Laramie, WY and some other towns, to know I would not last very long in any of them.

[kyb01]

Originally Posted by Gerania

Not me, but two friends raised their kids in East Falls. It's a nice area. There were yards, dogs, koi ponds. It looked very suburban.

The whole "family friendly" meme is so subjective. What's missing, pretty much, in my current neighborhood(Fairmount/Spring Garden) are oldheads like me. What I see a LOT of are younger people and lots with young children. So the idea that kids can't thrive in urban areas is nonsense.

[Pine to Vine]

"Flower Mound" is the best place bring up your children? LOL

[1ondoner]

C'mon, mid America has a lower cost of living and a high quality of life than both the East and West coasts. This has got nothing to do with lifestyle or attractions.


The reason you guys get salty when I say this is because you look down your noses on mid-America.

Originally Posted by kyb01

See, that's the lifestyle you like and that's fine. But you, habitually, pontificate on how superior it is. It comes off as self-righteous prattle even if that is not your intent.

I've spent enough time in Scottsbluff, Alliance, and larger, Lincoln, NE. Laramie, WY and some other towns, to know I would not last very long in any of them.

[DavePa]

Originally Posted by 1ondoner

C'mon, mid America has a lower cost of living and a high quality of life than both the East and West coasts. This has got nothing to do with lifestyle or attractions.

The reason you guys get salty when I say this is because you look down your noses on mid-America.

It is only one sites study. But I have found some posters in this forum. Get overly defensive if Philly is not praised in threads that only a handful of posters generally talk on positives in the city that are happening.

But if it is Mid-America as in the Midwest seen as superior in raising a family that was inferred and then mocked? If you read through the whole list of cities graded. Most major Midwest cities do hardly any better with a D grade too.

https://www.apartmentlist.com/renton...-for-families/

You have to scroll down to go through the list above.

But. Minneapolis, Indianapolis, St Louis, Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Milwaukee all got a D also as Philly was given. Chicago rated a B- in its placing though. Not as bad as most would expect? Atlanta also getting a D was surprising though too being a go to sunbelt city.

But perhaps a discussion on which of the criteria? Philadelphia did much poorer in then other cities that brought it down? Might be something to comment why?

I didn't compare any cities. But something brought Philly down?

[kyb01]

Originally Posted by 1ondoner

C'mon, mid America has a lower cost of living and a high quality of life than both the East and West coasts. This has got nothing to do with lifestyle or attractions.


The reason you guys get salty when I say this is because you look down your noses on mid-America.

If I truly hated mid-America, I would never have gone in the first place or been back multiple times. I have friends who live there. I can stomach those visits because of them but beyond a couple of weeks, not really, no

I just like big older cities, and for me, it has everything to do with lifestyle choices and attractions. I can't hear/see the Philadelphia Orchestra or Opera Phila. live in Omaha for example. I can't walk on the same streets that Benjamin Franklin(one of my heros) did in Boise. I can't get real bread in Rapid City. The list goes on and on.

We will never agree upon what constitutes "high quality of life". Lol!

There are sunbelt cities I like: Miami, New Orleans, Savannah, parts of LA, San Diego. But those aren't mid-American cities. There is one mid-American city I love: Chicago. Not what you are talking wrt " mid-America" I'm sure.

[1ondoner]

The 'burbs are usually better than the city limits. If I was to pick between living in ATL suburbs vs Philly suburbs, I'd go with Atlanta. Living in the city is generally more expensive and some cities are littered with abandominiums and those that are not can be mistaken for 3rd world countries.

Originally Posted by DavePa

It is only one sights study. But I have found some posters in this forum. Get overly defensive if Philly is not praised in threads that only a handful of posters generally talk on positives in the city that are happening.

But if it is Mid-America as in the Midwest seen as superior in raising a family that was inferred and then mocked? If you read through the whole list of cities graded. Most major Midwest cities do hardly any better with a D grade too.

https://www.apartmentlist.com/renton...-for-families/

You have to scroll down to go through the list above.

But. Minneapolis, Indianapolis, St Louis, Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Milwaukee all got a D also as Philly was given. Chicago rated a B- in its placing though. Not as bad as most would expect? Atlanta also getting a D was surprising though too being a go to sunbelt city.

But perhaps a discussion on which of the criteria? Philadelphia did much poorer in then other cities that brought it down? Might be something to comment why?

I didn't compare any cities. But something brought Philly down?

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by 1ondoner

I'd move to Frisco, TX in a heartbeat. Actually before moving to Philly I was pursuing a job opening in Dallas metro that did not materialize.

Not sure how Palo Alto is ranked 3rd for affordability. The best towns to live in are in the heartland. They are very affordable and relatively stress free. If you are oozing $$, CA is the best state.

I note a number of Kansas City-area suburbs among the top 100.

Data is from the Census Bureau at the municipality or Census Designated Place level, so I really can't quibble with the results. If they wanted to limit the study to large cities as opposed to all urban communities, I'm sure they would have.

[ElijahAstin]

Originally Posted by MarketStEl

I note a number of Kansas City-area suburbs among the top 100.

Data is from the Census Bureau at the municipality or Census Designated Place level, so I really can't quibble with the results. If they wanted to limit the study to large cities as opposed to all urban communities, I'm sure they would have.

The data isn't "wrong." It just contains a limited number of lazily selected and weighted metrics, one of which correlates inversely with "best places to live" type studies.

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by ElijahAstin

The data isn't "wrong." It just contains a limited number of lazily selected and weighted metrics, one of which correlates inversely with "best places to live" type studies.

Which one? I count four:

1. Uniform Crime Report data on violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants (which I would assume gets extrapolated for cities with fewer than 100,000 residents)
   
2. Census data on median gross rent as a percentage of household income
   
3. Graduation rate from the local public high schools
   
4. Percentage of the population that is under age 18

They're weighted, in descending order, 35%, 30%, 25%, and 10%.

I'd agree that the weighting seems somewhat arbitrary.