Customer Reviews

Cities Ranked & Rated: More than 400 Metropolitan Areas Evaluated in the U.S. and Canada

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This book is full of fascinating information about 375 metropolitan areas in the U.S., as well as 27 Canadian metropolitan areas. Each area is evaluated and described in terms of the demographic characteristics of its population, the climate, the economy, taxes and cost of living, educational factors, commuting, health care and other health-related factors, leisure activities, and art and culture. Each of those categories is subdivided into multiple, more specific measures.

Based on the listed raw data, the book ranks the metropolitan areas against each other, in each category and overall. The first part of the book has a short section describing the meaning of the data for each category, along with a list of the top 30 and bottom 30 cities for each statistic.

The bulk of the book (669 pages out of the total of 850) consists of a 1-to-2-page description of each U.S. metropolitan area. The description consists of a listing of all the statistics in each category for the given metropolitan area, preceded by an intelligently-written introduction which provides the kind of information that isn't directly reflected in the statistics. From my knowledge of the cities with which I am personally familiar, I would say the writers did an excellent and accurate job of portraying the flavor of each metropolitan area.

BUT:

If you are going to use this book to make important personal decisions, make sure you do your own research, and double-check the information that's most important to you. I found several errors in the book - and since I have no knowledge at all of most of the topics covered, there are most likely many other inaccuracies that I'm incapable of identifying myself. Examples:

The book says that the average metropolitan area has 6 snowfalls of at least 1.5 inches annually. It also says, however, that the average metropolitan area has an average TOTAL annual snowfall of only 7 inches. Of course, it is impossible for both of those numbers to be accurate.

One of the numbers given for each city is the number of major airports within 60 miles. It says that there is one major airport within 60 miles of Eugene, Oregon, but the nearest major airport (Portland) is more than 100 miles away. In the listing for Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, they make the preposterous claim that there are FOUR major airports within sixty miles, where in reality the closest major airport (Baltimore) is ninety miles away. The discrepancy has nothing to do with the definition of "major," because they also give the daily number of flights at those airports, which makes it clear that their definition of "major" does not include the airports in Eugene or Harrisburg.

Furthermore, the data doesn't always mean what it appears to mean, so read the discussion of the data toward the beginning of the book before turning to the individual statistics for the cities you're interested in. One glaring example is the ranking for "water quality," which has nothing to do with the healthfulness of the drinking water. It is a measure of the "quality of runoff and groundwater," which is decidedly NOT what most people are interested in when they investigate water quality in a prospective place to live.

Finally, in their otherwise helpful and well-written introductions to the metropolitan areas, and even in their interpretation of the statistics, the writers occasionally allow their politically correct prejudices to influence their comments and rankings. One amusing example is the following sentence from their introduction for Portland, Oregon: "Although average commuter times are long, the area has good public transit with a light-rail system among the nation's best." In other words, the city is to be commended for following policies the authors approve of, even if the evidence shows that those policies don't help. (Just try reversing the order of the clauses in the quoted sentence above, and you'll see what I mean.)

Also, the book's ranking system assumes that people will always want maximum racial diversity, minimum taxes, and a mild climate. You might prefer a Normal Rockwell setting, you might want the kind of governmental services that are available only in high-tax jurisdictions, and you might enjoy long brisk winters or searing desert heat.

So the book is fascinating, helpful, and can drastically shorten the time and trouble it takes to research any metropolitan area. But you have to read it intelligently, and you should do your own verification of information that really matters to you.

Though my composite rating of this book would stand at 4 stars, I feel (just as with the first version) that it is necessary to subdivide my review into two areas: usefulness of the data, and usefulness of the rankings/ratings.

Usefulness of the data: 5 stars
The scope of the data, already excellent in the first version, has been expanded even more in this rendition, now including useful cultural indicators such as percent Democrat/Republican and religious observance %age, useful for people (like me) who give great weight to cultural/political allegiances in metro area choice. The 150 or so pages in the introductory section provide a great explanation of the statistics and the methodologies used in obtaining them, along with dozens of informative tables showing how the cities stack up against each other in everything from educational attainment to average tax burden to long-term population growth. Some "up-and-coming" cities newly in the 100,000-150,000 population range, such as Bowling Green, KY, have been added, expanding choices. The treatment of metropolitan areas remains problematic, though, as cities are often split off from their suburbs; for example, Wayne County, MI is treated as its own "urban area", while the suburban Detroit counties - Oakland, Macomb, etc. - are grouped in their own category. The same is true in Southern California, Dallas-Fort Worth, and South Florida, but not in other areas; this does give a more granular view of the cities, but it also greatly distorts some statistics because it is only counting one county out of a vast metro (i.e., number of top-ranked universities, physicians per capita, average commute time, etc.) Caution should be used in analyzing these "metro" areas.

Usefulness of rankings: 2 stars
I think that the ranking system in this series is utter garbage, but that is a fault common to most "ranked and rated" literature. It is highly, highly biased against large metro areas; of the top 15 metro areas on their scale, the only large city present is Portland, OR (interestingly enough, Atlanta was #7 in the first version.) Factors such as Transportation and Cost of Living were heavily weighted, automatically handicapping any large urban area; in both editions of the book, smaller-sized cities (Charlottesville, VA in the first and Gainesville, FL in this one) have taken the top spot. Though the details behind the ratings are absolute (i.e., average commute time), the importance assigned to each category is highly subjective; some people are not bothered by traffic, crowding, and $500,000 houses if they are in a culturally and economically thriving region (count me as one), whereas these factors would make other people miserable. Key point: take them with a grain (or an entire plate!) of salt.

Overall, Cities Ranked and Rated is an excellent statistical and data source for those researching various metros, but I would recommend relying much more on analyzing the actual numbers than on the arbitrary, subjective rating scheme.

This book has a great deal of information but I disagree with how the top metropolitan areas are chosen. The metro area that I live in is consistently rated as one of the top places to live in by many media sources but in this book it ranks near the bottom. And some cities have moved from the very top to the bottom or vice versa in just a few years time span.

If you analyze the ranking and ratings of this book, you will find very serious misrepresentations! Try to Compare two of your familiar cities one has low crime rate and the other much higher. What you will find is that they are about the same!! Try San Francisco and Oakland, San Jose and Richmond, CA. When you are looking for a safe place to live and raise your kids, you are likely ending up with a crime hovering place. I don't have any bias against rich or poor, but just the nature of the book--it is inaccurate and misleading!

This book is illogical to the point of being absurd! For this "rating of cities" book to be truly useful, the cities or metropolitan areas need to be categorized by total population. Such as, Small Metropolitan Statistical Areas: 100,000 to 400,000; Medium MSA: 400,000 to 1,000,0000; Large MSA: 1,000,000 to 3,000,000 and Very Large MSA 3,000,000 or more. This is because many of the categories on which these MSA are being rated are affected by the size of the population of the metropolitan areas. Therefore, cities or MSA with similiar population ranges should be compared and rated for a valid comparison.

I saw this book at the library, and when I saw how inexpensive it was, decided that I wanted it for myself. Very informative, and detailed information with specific statistics on population, education, cultural and demographical information. If you are even thinking about a move, this is an excellent reference tool.

I agree with another reviewer. There is a ton of data, and if you need information for a move this book gathers most of it for you. Some data however is misleading or confusing. For example my area of interest is the Front Range of Colorado. Some data points listed under a city is actually county or statewide data. Since I am looking for a smaller city to live in I might have crossed off some of the cities because the county population is considerably higher than the city in the book.

As far as ranking goes, it is somewhat driven by the author's view of ideal in each category. For me low humidity is more important than days over 90 degrees or below 32 degrees. Thus the rankings are skewed against what I am looking for. The book would be more helpful if it had a third section that allowed the reader to construct their own rating scale and explain how to load the data in a spreadsheet for evaluation. That would be awesome!!!!

Additionally when we visited Fort Collins, we found the city to lack the building code enforcement we are used to. Consequently, we found the city to look trashy and undeserving of it's high rating. Yes the climate is great, but the neighborhoods are trashy. The book needs to include building code enforcement standards.

Wow! This may be more than some of you care to see, it's the size of a phone book. But, it is easy to read and find the bits that you are interested in. Very well organized, and valuable data. It is a great match with "100 Best Tax Cities".

This 2007 publication is based upon 2006 data and is an update of the 2004 edition. If you are considering relocation or retirement, you will find all the facts and data needed to facilitate an informed decision. I visited several of the cities my wife and I selected based upon "Cities Ranked", found the author's information to be spot on, and ultimately selected Colorado Springs (#18 in 2004 and #4 in 2007) as our new home.

This is a great reference manual for anyone that wants, needs, or is forced to relocate. It's also a great book for those grads that might be considering several different geographical areas (guidance counselors and human resource folks need this book). The book ranks about 400 cities throughout the US and Canada. You could use "Cities Ranked and Rated" online, but the book is much, much better. The first 140 pages of the book delve into what, how, and the whys of the data, and believe me there is a bunch of data. I'm betting this is the company from which everyone else gets their data. You've seen those mags that list 10 Best Places to Retire, or 10 Best Places to Raise a Family, etc, etc. The amount of data crammed into the two pages per city is staggering. Everything about weather, taxes, education, outdoor activities, libraries, arts, Starbucks (who would have thought), transportation, demographics, housing, income, healthcare; the list goes on and on. We also own the first edition and this new one was worth the "upgrade."