It struck me as a warmer version of Norway, a comparison noted by my "aunt-in-law" and her husband, which is significant support since she's from here and she's from there (I wound up meeting them for the first time in Norway and the second time a week later in Vancouver).
Density can make a big difference though, no doubt, and it tends to depend on how you measure. For example, rt mentioned DFW; by incorporated area, Dallas barely makes the top ten (9th); it's only third largest IN TEXAS (Houston is 4th and San Antonio 7th). On the other hand, by metropolitan area Dallas is 4th and Houston drops to 6th (surprisingly, the difference is <500,000 yet still leaves room for Philly between them), while San Antonio drops to 25th. You can also go by combined statistical area, in which case DC and Boston, two cities that barely make the top 25 in the first list and the top ten in the second, shoot up to 4th and 5th, while DFW drops back to 7th and Houston to 9th. You COULD even go by the list of megaregions, and then the Great Lakes (including Chicago, but also places like Detroit, Milwaukee, Minnesota-St. Paul and Minneapolis, just off the top of my head) is on top, followed by the Boston to DC area (it says something about how many people live in the Midwest that there are LESS people in the combined area of the 1st, 4th and 5th largest combined statistical areas). For the immediate future I'm still a little leery of that one though because it's still rather speculative, emergent and in some ways simply messed up badly. Everything rom Cascadia down is "mega" only in the geographic sense, and Houston manages to be in both the Gulf Coast AND Texas Triangle megaregion, suggesting those are really a single megaregion centered around Houston and slightly larger than Southern CA (though still dwarfed by the Great Lakes and Northeast).
For my money metro's the way to go, because all major cities inevitably have a multitude of smaller surrounding, nominally independent, cities and towns reduced to mere extensions of the core metropolis. Sometimes they even exist WITHIN the larger cities from which their governments (but little else). Bellaire is completely surrounded by Houston; Arlington, the 50th largest US city by incorporated area, is undoubtedly a part of the metropolitan area formed by Dallas to the east and Fort Worth to the west. Depends on your metric, and with 20,000,000 in the NYC metro area pretty much every US city but L.A. and Chicago likely seems dinky to Tom.
Density can make a big difference though, no doubt, and it tends to depend on how you measure. For example, rt mentioned DFW; by incorporated area, Dallas barely makes the top ten (9th); it's only third largest IN TEXAS (Houston is 4th and San Antonio 7th). On the other hand, by metropolitan area Dallas is 4th and Houston drops to 6th (surprisingly, the difference is <500,000 yet still leaves room for Philly between them), while San Antonio drops to 25th. You can also go by combined statistical area, in which case DC and Boston, two cities that barely make the top 25 in the first list and the top ten in the second, shoot up to 4th and 5th, while DFW drops back to 7th and Houston to 9th. You COULD even go by the list of megaregions, and then the Great Lakes (including Chicago, but also places like Detroit, Milwaukee, Minnesota-St. Paul and Minneapolis, just off the top of my head) is on top, followed by the Boston to DC area (it says something about how many people live in the Midwest that there are LESS people in the combined area of the 1st, 4th and 5th largest combined statistical areas). For the immediate future I'm still a little leery of that one though because it's still rather speculative, emergent and in some ways simply messed up badly. Everything rom Cascadia down is "mega" only in the geographic sense, and Houston manages to be in both the Gulf Coast AND Texas Triangle megaregion, suggesting those are really a single megaregion centered around Houston and slightly larger than Southern CA (though still dwarfed by the Great Lakes and Northeast).
For my money metro's the way to go, because all major cities inevitably have a multitude of smaller surrounding, nominally independent, cities and towns reduced to mere extensions of the core metropolis. Sometimes they even exist WITHIN the larger cities from which their governments (but little else). Bellaire is completely surrounded by Houston; Arlington, the 50th largest US city by incorporated area, is undoubtedly a part of the metropolitan area formed by Dallas to the east and Fort Worth to the west. Depends on your metric, and with 20,000,000 in the NYC metro area pretty much every US city but L.A. and Chicago likely seems dinky to Tom.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
This message last edited by Joel on 31/08/2011 at 05:10:08 PM
The world's top ten and worst ten most livable cities
30/08/2011 07:06:50 PM
- 1275 Views
How do you call towns "cities"?
30/08/2011 08:12:27 PM
- 557 Views
I thought you were going to mention Perth. The rest are clearly cities, if you ask me.
30/08/2011 08:23:33 PM
- 542 Views
Perth has 1.7 million people.
30/08/2011 08:30:26 PM
- 694 Views
A million people isn't a city?
30/08/2011 08:28:20 PM
- 708 Views
Not necessarily.
30/08/2011 10:49:08 PM
- 677 Views
Re: Not necessarily.
30/08/2011 11:56:20 PM
- 615 Views
to meet their definition of best it also seems to help if you have mostly white
31/08/2011 01:52:11 PM
- 567 Views
Have you been to Toronto or Vancouver ?
31/08/2011 04:02:01 PM
- 584 Views
no but I have the internet and they meet the ethnic description I gave
31/08/2011 05:25:40 PM
- 690 Views
Yeah, I'm sorry, but you're fairly off with that one.
31/08/2011 04:52:25 PM
- 660 Views
OK you did see where I included Asians didn't you and I would call less than 2% significant
31/08/2011 05:31:45 PM
- 630 Views
As a comparison ...
30/08/2011 08:37:28 PM
- 737 Views
weather is a factor and three Canadian cities made the top ten?
30/08/2011 09:22:32 PM
- 700 Views
Vancouver at least has a nice climate.
30/08/2011 09:40:31 PM
- 823 Views
yeah there are not vey many US cities I would want to raise kids in
30/08/2011 11:16:52 PM
- 534 Views
For the record, I found Vancouver quite lovely.
31/08/2011 05:09:37 PM
- 774 Views
Quality health care in the US, really?
31/08/2011 12:27:41 AM
- 654 Views
Also,
31/08/2011 12:53:00 PM
- 678 Views
no it works out that nicely for most people
31/08/2011 01:36:13 PM
- 637 Views
Getting care, getting timely care, getting quality care and paying for it are all different things.
31/08/2011 03:39:30 PM
- 789 Views
tha tis becuase the hospital is run by republicans and they were out to get you *NM*
31/08/2011 07:37:47 PM
- 467 Views
Livability obviously doesn't include "Concentration of Venomous Creatures". *NM*
30/08/2011 11:43:43 PM
- 339 Views
or perhaps Australian cities rank so high because they're so much better than the alternative
30/08/2011 11:58:47 PM
- 643 Views
Actually, the reason our cities are so liveable is because they're built to keep said creatures out
31/08/2011 12:59:01 AM
- 560 Views
How?
31/08/2011 08:20:01 AM
- 531 Views
I can't risk putting the answer on a public forum, the venomous creatures may find out
01/09/2011 07:26:52 AM
- 478 Views
Why no Boston? *NM*
31/08/2011 12:16:28 AM
- 329 Views
Annoyingness of local sports fans was also taken into consideration. *NM*
31/08/2011 12:31:21 AM
- 424 Views
Obviously the study group consists of Yankees fans. Poor, unfortunate souls. *NM*
31/08/2011 12:46:17 AM
- 303 Views
A low population density seems to be a key determinant in these rankings
31/08/2011 12:51:45 AM
- 525 Views
There is an obvious mistake
31/08/2011 03:07:31 AM
- 815 Views