To form our list, we looked at quality of life measures in the nation's largest continental U.S. metropolitan statistical areas--geographic entities defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget for use by federal agencies in collecting, tabulating and publishing federal statistics. We eliminated areas with populations smaller than 500,000 and assigned points to the remaining metro regions across five data sets: Five-year income growth per household and cost of living from Moody's Economy.com, crime data and leisure index from Sperling's Best Places, and annual unemployment statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
I know they had to draw the line somewhere, but in my opinion by looking only at large metropolitan areas Forbes probably missed out on all of the Best Places to live even using their five quality of life measures.
But then I guess they would have had to call their list "Most Livable Places" instead of "Most Livable Cities".
Another nit I have to pick with Forbes: how much driving around does one have to do to enjoy these livable cities? Do you have to drive 20 minutes to buy a quart of milk? What about the drive to work? Is the freeway a parking lot from 6 am to 10 am? These factors which have a large impact on quality of life aren't assessed in the Forbes study. I guess folks will have different ideas of what "most livable" means to them.
In my mind, "livable" means I know most of the people who live on my street by name and see them at least every week if not every other day which means I live in a 'real' community, I can walk to the grocery store to pick up a few items - I don't have to drive, I don't have to have things under lock and key in my yard to prevent them from "walking away" at night, etc.
Here's to small towns and those who love them.
