Scottsdale #7 on Best Places to Live 2006 (Flagstaff, San Luis: best cities, big house, neighborhood)

[SpeedyAZ]

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/money...006/index.html

Scottsdale is #7 on Money Magazine's top 100 places to live in 2006 .

[Goin to AZ]

i am willing to bet that those cnn money guys invested alot of money on property in those places and they are trying to get a resturn on their investment that they are currently losing on.

[ITChick]

Originally Posted by SpeedyAZ

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/money...006/index.html

Scottsdale is #7 on Money Magazine's top 100 places to live in 2006 .

I question the validity of that list. Two places I know very well are Sugarland, TX and Naperville, IL. I wouldn't want to live in either of those places (very plain vanilla suburbs).

Scottsdale is nice but unaffordable for most people except for the bad area.

[nova]

I agree. Naperville is way expensive and yes there is alot of jobs, but pay 6.00hr because it's all one big shopping mall area. I use to live there. Look on any other list you'll see alot of virginia places.

[Goin to AZ]

and not a single alaska city named on the coldest places to live. Haha, That list is a joke.

[ITChick]

Originally Posted by nova

I agree. Naperville is way expensive and yes there is alot of jobs, but pay 6.00hr because it's all one big shopping mall area. I use to live there. Look on any other list you'll see alot of virginia places.

"One big shopping mall area."
Perfect description of Naperville, IL. and pretty much Sugarland, TX. too.

If it were my list, I would substitute Wicker Park in Chicago, IL. and the Gallaria area of Houston, TX.

[steve22]

Originally Posted by ITChick

"One big shopping mall area."
Perfect description of Naperville, IL. and pretty much Sugarland, TX. too.

If it were my list, I would substitute Wicker Park in Chicago, IL. and the Gallaria area of Houston, TX.

Or the Gaslamp district in San Diego. Or the Beacon St. area in Boston. Or the Lodo area in Denver. Or the Mission District in San Francisco... or lots of other fun, lively areas in different cities. I could go on and on. Truth is, if you're really looking for diversity, culture, nightlife, nearby recreational areas etc., what I would rate as the things that make a community desirable to live in, you could do a lot better than this list. But the criteria on which they're basing this list looks to me like it's pretty heavily weighted on the overall economic advantages of the place, things like job availability, cost of living, and average income.

Some of the cities on here I've been to are, I'll agree, very nice places to live; Fort Collins I couldn't argue as the #1 pick, for instance. That's a terrific place. But overall, some of the communities on here really seem like pretty bland suburubia to me, and would only appeal to someone interested in a place that has a good economy and a high standard of living relative to income. That's why they've got lots of upscale suburban-type communities (like Sugarland, Naperville, and Overland Park KS) on the list that I wouldn't describe as very exciting or unique places to live in.

Comparing a place like Ann Arbor MI at no. 19 with a place like West Bloomfield, MI at no. 16, for instance, doesn't make much sense unless it's based mostly on average income, safety, cost of living and nearby jobs. W. Bloomfield is pretty much your run-of-the-mill rich suburban community with big houses, lots of middle-aged families and rich people, upscale malls, and country clubs, but not much in the way of culture or nightlife at all. And not many young singles. Ann Arbor, by comparison, is a true city with tons of other, more unique city-type things to do and a far more diverse population. In my opinion, they're very diffferent places and depending on your priorities, there's no comparison between the two.

[ITChick]

Originally Posted by steve22

Or the Gaslamp district in San Diego. Or the Beacon St. area in Boston. Or the Lodo area in Denver. Or the Mission District in San Francisco... or lots of other fun, lively areas in different cities. I could go on and on. Truth is, if you're really looking for diversity, culture, nightlife, nearby recreational areas etc., what I would rate as the things that make a community desirable to live in, you could do a lot better than this list. But the criteria on which they're basing this list looks to me like it's pretty heavily weighted on the overall economic advantages of the place, things like job availability, cost of living, and average income.

Some of the cities on here I've been to are, I'll agree, very nice places to live; Fort Collins I couldn't argue as the #1 pick, for instance. That's a terrific place. But overall, some of the communities on here really seem like pretty bland suburubia to me, and would only appeal to someone interested in a place that has a good economy and a high standard of living relative to income. That's why they've got lots of upscale suburban-type communities (like Sugarland, Naperville, and Overland Park KS) on the list that I wouldn't describe as very exciting or unique places to live in.

Comparing a place like Ann Arbor MI at no. 19 with a place like West Bloomfield, MI at no. 16, for instance, doesn't make much sense unless it's based mostly on average income, safety, cost of living and nearby jobs. W. Bloomfield is pretty much your run-of-the-mill rich suburban community with big houses, lots of middle-aged families and rich people, upscale malls, and country clubs, but not much in the way of culture or nightlife at all. And not many young singles. Ann Arbor, by comparison, is a true city with tons of other, more unique city-type things to do and a far more diverse population. In my opinion, they're very diffferent places and depending on your priorities, there's no comparison between the two.

I think you've nailed who Money/CNN is appealing to with their lists of the "Best Cities"; run-of-the-mill rich suburban folk.

I don't fall into this catagory and I don't believe that most of the U.S. does either.

Time to look for a better list.

[SpeedyAZ]

economic advantages of the place, things like job availability, cost of living, and average income.

Boy, those are horrible things to base a move on....?

Or the Mission District in San Francisco

A good friend of mine lives in Pacific Heights, is that in the mission district? If yes, I agree it's a great area to live.

[steve22]

Originally Posted by SpeedyAZ

A good friend of mine lives in Pacific Heights, is that in the mission district? If yes, I agree it's a great area to live.

Not really. Pacific Heights is a very posh area just northeast of downtown, and probably the most expensive area of S.F. to live in- which is to say, VERY expensive. It's one of the oldest, most exclusive communities in the Western U.S. It's S.F.'s version of Bel Air or Paradise Valley, essentially.

The Mission District is more of a young, trendy enclave near downtown that was settled & began as a predominantly Latino community, but has gentrified into a hip neighborhood with tons of young people and nightlife. Lots of cool shops, restaurants, and unique things to see & do. I've spent a fair amount of time in S.F. and it's probably my favorite area of the city. It's not dissimilar from the other areas mentioned in the thread, like Wicker Park, the Gaslamp district , Lodo, etc. All are unique, fun and hip enclaves within larger cities themselves- which I guess probably excludes them from this list.

What's really interesting to me about CNN's list, and what really makes me think that this is mostly based on where you can live the most lavishly for the least money, is the omission of numerous places which are usually regarded as the best small cities in the country to live in. Cities like Boulder, Flagstaff, Santa Fe, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Burlington VT, Charlottesville VA, San Luis Obispo CA... the list goes on. None of those cities are on this list.

Why not? Probably because all of them are very expensive places to live with a relative scarcity of high-paying entry-level jobs in the area. You can't live as lavishly on the same budget in Santa Barbara as you can in Naperville, for instance, even if you could find a good job near Santa Barbara, which you'd have trouble doing. On the other hand, which place would you rather live in if you could? No contest. Anyway, that's my theory.