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.
Speak for yourself. These three are home to 20 million people it may not be your cup of tea but many many people love living
In those. Many people would take it over Seattle and many people do. I did. Was supposed to finish my studies at UW.
I lije Seattle, but for me its NOT a better place to live than the other three
Mexico City has 25 million people, must be a much better place to live.
Mexico City has 25 million people, must be a much better place to live.
What's wrong with mexico city. Millions live better there than they ever could in Seattle.
But that is a sideline. The point still evades you. Seattle is not going to be everyone cup of tea. They may prefer places you like less. Their opinion. Everyone isn't gonna have the same opinion on where is best to live.
Millions WOULD take Mexico city over Seattle just like millions would take the sunbelt cities over Seattle.
Dallas, Houston and Atlanta have to be driven by economy and COL. To suggest they are better places to live than many on this list is patently absurd. IMHO
Thats opinion. I love to visit places like Seattle, but I would never entertain the idea of living there. To me, Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta are better places to live. You obviously feel different and thats fine.
There are many flaws in how they score a location. My neighborhood gets an F for crime, for example, yet it's one of the safest neighborhoods in Boston, which is one of the safer big cities. So what is the metric? And we get an F for cost of living, but a B for employment, in part due to high income of the residents. So doesn't that cancel out the cost of living issue? A+ for amenities, that makes me pleased, but a C for weather is quite meaningless, because I like the weather we have. All in all, I'd say walkscore, which is also deeply flawed, does a bit better on this.
Mexico City has 25 million people, must be a much better place to live.
Although i agree that population is a poor barometer for quality of life, your analogy makes no sense. Mexico City is in Mexico. As the capital and most important city of its country, it might very well be viewed as the most desirable and best place to live in Mexico. Most people living there don't have an option to move to the US, so for them it's the best city available.
That aside, what is so wrong with Dallas, Houston and Atlanta? These cities offer low COL, mild climate, good employment prospects and the amenities of a large city. They may not be your cup of tea - and i can understand that - but that does not mean there is anything wrong with the methodology because the qualities offered by these cities do in fact appeal to a lot of people based on many objective metrics.
What's wrong with mexico city. Millions live better there than they ever could in Seattle.
But that is a sideline. The point still evades you. Seattle is not going to be everyone cup of tea. They may prefer places you like less. Their opinion. Everyone isn't gonna have the same opinion on where is best to live.
Millions WOULD take Mexico city over Seattle just like millions would take the sunbelt cities over Seattle.
People from Seattle assume everyone in the universe wishes to live there. That being said I'm not going to assume that Mexico City is a better place to live than Seattle simply because it's more populated than it, or cheaper.
You know foo is a worthless troll. You're only giving it satisfaction by responding. Join the campaign and put it on ignore.
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.