http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-09-26/san-francisco-is-americas-best-city-in-2012
QuoteAs long as chilly weather, walking uphill, and really expensive real estate don't turn you off, San Francisco has no shortage of positive qualities. Though numbering fewer than a million people, this coastal city packs in so much—from world-class restaurants and museums to community fairs and music festivals, a large educated class, and an improving economy—that many proud San Franciscans will tell you that its finish at the top of Businessweek.com's 2012 best cities ranking is well-earned.
"So glad, but also not surprised, that San Francisco did well on the best cities to live list," says Betsy Crabtree, publisher of San Francisco Arts Monthly, in an e-mail.
For the ranking, Businessweek.com once again teamed up with Bloomberg Rankings to evaluate data on 100 of the country's largest cities. We looked at leisure attributes (the number of restaurants, bars, libraries, museums, professional sports teams, and park acres by population), educational attributes (public school performance, the number of colleges, and rate of graduate-degree holders), economic factors (income and unemployment), crime, and air quality. Major professional league and minor league teams, as well as U.S.-based teams belonging to international leagues in each city were included. This year we placed greater emphasis on leisure amenities than we did last year. The figures come from data company Onboard Informatics and the nonprofit Trust for Public Land. As the methodology was altered, changes in a city's ranking from 2011 do not suggest that it has gotten "better" or "worse."
There's no agreeing on which is the "best" city for you to live in. For that, family connections, occupation, lifestyle, and perhaps a lifelong devotion to a doomed sports team all come into play. The list is our best stab at recognizing some of the most important common variables.
San Francisco, for instance, had the highest score for education (based on the previously mentioned factors), ranked sixth for leisure, and placed in the top 20 for economic factors and air quality. In addition to the usual plethora of food trucks, restaurants, bars, and parks, the diverse city also hosts an endless stream of events, including an annual jazz festival, a literary festival, and a number of fairs in the month of October alone. That, along with sheer breathtaking views, attracts about 129,000 tourists every day, according to the San Francisco Travel Association. The city's cosmopolitan nature enhances the amenities available to residents year-round.
Add a lively arts scene. While cultural institutions such as the de Young Museum may house famous works, the city also tries to bring art to all its residents. Urban Solutions' 2 Blocks of Art, a free art walk in the Central Market neighborhood, for instance, is one of a few projects bringing art to the city's challenged areas. "I've worked here for three administrations and the local government leadership has always been supportive of the arts in the city. That's really created a lot of the pride we have here," says Robynn Takayama, community arts and education program manager at the San Francisco Arts Commission.
Not everything is golden in San Francisco, of course. An influx of young techies has driven up living costs. (Average rent for a studio apartment is $2,075, according to research firm RealFacts.) As the city has grown wealthier, it has lost some of its legendary grit. Yet it has one of the largest U.S. populations of homeless people.
Northwest cities claimed two further places in the top five on our list: Seattle (second) and Portland (fifth) edged out such southern California cities as San Diego (ninth) and Los Angeles (50th).
New York, the country's largest city, placed seventh.
Safety boosted two Virginia cities: Virginia Beach and Chesapeake ranked second and fourth, respectively, in this category. The region, home to naval facilities and both active and retired military and defense-contracting professionals, was also among the most prosperous.
Washington, which placed first for leisure when factoring in amenities per capita, also received a boost from its second-place finish for education, ranking third overall.
Who knew garbon leaving would have such an impact.
Wrong. Too many gays and non-whites.
Quote from: Neil on September 26, 2012, 08:00:09 PM
Wrong. Too many gays and non-whites.
FOB Russians are not non-white.
Quote from: Neil on September 26, 2012, 08:00:09 PM
Wrong. Too many gays and non-whites.
Chinese people are not non-white. :bowler: (<---that's Mono)
Quote from: Neil on September 26, 2012, 08:00:09 PM
Wrong. Too many gays and non-whites.
Keep your homophobia and xenophobia, we'll keep their kick-ass restaurants.
Wasn't good enough for Garbo though.
Quote from: katmai on September 26, 2012, 10:13:46 PM
Wasn't good enough for Garbo though.
I understand New York City has a rather vibrant restaurant scene as well. Totally anecdotal, though.
Seattle #2! :yeah:
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2012, 10:49:45 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 27, 2012, 10:44:54 AM
Seattle #2! :yeah:
Which is so clearly a lie.
I will disagree, but then, looking at the rest of the list...it does seem to be mostly crap.
Really? Cleveland in the top 50? LOL.
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2012, 10:49:45 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 27, 2012, 10:44:54 AM
Seattle #2! :yeah:
Which is so clearly a lie.
I don't know why, has everything going for it: rainy and gloomy most of the time, plenty of coffee shops and Asian chicks. Sounds like a winner to me.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 27, 2012, 01:53:05 PM
I don't know why, has everything going for it: rainy and gloomy most of the time, plenty of coffee shops and Asian chicks. Sounds like a winner to me.
Yeah so point 1 isn't a positive and point 3 is a toss up.
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2012, 01:56:42 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 27, 2012, 01:53:05 PM
I don't know why, has everything going for it: rainy and gloomy most of the time, plenty of coffee shops and Asian chicks. Sounds like a winner to me.
Yeah so point 1 isn't a positive and point 3 is a toss up.
Speak for yourself, sun worshipper.
My brother liked San Francisco when he lived there for three years and I enjoyed visiting. Nice town.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 27, 2012, 01:57:11 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2012, 01:56:42 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 27, 2012, 01:53:05 PM
I don't know why, has everything going for it: rainy and gloomy most of the time, plenty of coffee shops and Asian chicks. Sounds like a winner to me.
Yeah so point 1 isn't a positive and point 3 is a toss up.
Speak for yourself, sun worshipper.
Perhaps that's because I've spent a lot of time in places where the sun doesn't turn things into an outdoor sauna?
Quote from: katmai on September 26, 2012, 10:13:46 PM
Wasn't good enough for Garbo though.
I was in the Bay Area for 7 years.
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2012, 02:00:28 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 27, 2012, 01:57:11 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2012, 01:56:42 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 27, 2012, 01:53:05 PM
I don't know why, has everything going for it: rainy and gloomy most of the time, plenty of coffee shops and Asian chicks. Sounds like a winner to me.
Yeah so point 1 isn't a positive and point 3 is a toss up.
Speak for yourself, sun worshipper.
Perhaps that's because I've spent a lot of time in places where the sun doesn't turn things into an outdoor sauna?
Unlike Mart.
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2012, 02:00:28 PM
Perhaps that's because I've spent a lot of time in places where the sun doesn't turn things into an outdoor sauna?
:( Perhaps.
Quote from: DGuller on September 27, 2012, 02:07:23 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 26, 2012, 07:40:31 PM
Who knew garbon leaving would have such an impact.
:XD:
I guess though it'd be odd if it took 2 years for them to recover. ;)
Quote from: katmai on September 27, 2012, 02:15:06 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2012, 02:00:57 PM
Quote from: katmai on September 26, 2012, 10:13:46 PM
Wasn't good enough for Garbo though.
I was in the Bay Area for 7 years.
Palo Alto /= San Francisco
I made it to the city as much as I could. Point is - after 7 years, I was tired - which doesn't mean SF is bad.
Quote from: katmai on September 27, 2012, 02:16:13 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2012, 10:49:45 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 27, 2012, 10:44:54 AM
Seattle #2! :yeah:
Which is so clearly a lie.
Not really, Seattle for years has been high on these lists.
Yeah but so does Cleveland so we can see how relevant these lists are.
Oh and CC, you voluntarily live in Canada so your opinion is already suspect.
My biggest beefs with San Francisco are too sunny and too expensive. Seattle beats it out on both points. There are worse places though and there's a good chance I'll be living near there soon.
Max = Vampire
Hah just looked at list Anchorage beat out LA
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2012, 02:21:14 PM
Quote from: katmai on September 27, 2012, 02:16:13 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2012, 10:49:45 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 27, 2012, 10:44:54 AM
Seattle #2! :yeah:
Which is so clearly a lie.
Not really, Seattle for years has been high on these lists.
Yeah but so does Cleveland so we can see how relevant these lists are.
Oh and CC, you voluntarily live in Canada so your opinion is already suspect.
Jesus Garbon it is 46th. How many cities over 200k people do you think the USA has?
Quote from: katmai on September 27, 2012, 02:40:58 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2012, 02:21:14 PM
Quote from: katmai on September 27, 2012, 02:16:13 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2012, 10:49:45 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 27, 2012, 10:44:54 AM
Seattle #2! :yeah:
Which is so clearly a lie.
Not really, Seattle for years has been high on these lists.
Yeah but so does Cleveland so we can see how relevant these lists are.
Oh and CC, you voluntarily live in Canada so your opinion is already suspect.
Jesus Garbon it is 46th. How many cities over 200k people do you think the USA has?
Wiki shows ~110.
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2012, 02:20:04 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 27, 2012, 02:07:23 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 26, 2012, 07:40:31 PM
Who knew garbon leaving would have such an impact.
:XD:
I guess though it'd be odd if it took 2 years for them to recover. ;)
Probably took at least that long to get the smell out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vl5FWUMnNM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vl5FWUMnNM)
Maybe Max was thinking of LA or something. SF is too foggy not too sunny.
I only have statistics to go off, which give it an average of over 300 hours of sunshine per month in the summer months.
Sunshine needs to be rare to be appreciated, otherwise it's just grating.
:blink:
Quote from: Maximus on September 27, 2012, 03:08:52 PM
I only have statistics to go off, which give it an average of over 300 hours of sunshine per month in the summer months.
Sunshine needs to be rare to be appreciated, otherwise it's just grating.
I was there in August of 2010 and it was cold and foggy. But granted I am a Texas used to blazing heat and crippling droughts.
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2012, 02:21:14 PM
Oh and CC, you voluntarily live in Canada so your opinion is already suspect.
like I said, for some strange reason you have something against quality - I do live in one of the top three cities in the world (Not merely the best city in the US) ;)
Quote from: Valmy on September 27, 2012, 03:21:07 PM
I was there in August of 2010 and it was cold and foggy. But granted I am a Texas used to blazing heat and crippling droughts.
And I was in Seattle in November of 2011 and it was warm and sunny. :D
I've been reassured that that is not the usual state of Seattle in the winter however.
Quote from: Maximus on September 27, 2012, 03:25:29 PM
And I was in Seattle in November of 2011 and it was warm and sunny. :D
I've been reassured that that is not the usual state of Seattle in the winter however.
I was in Portland in May. It was cold and sunny.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2012, 03:23:53 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2012, 02:21:14 PM
Oh and CC, you voluntarily live in Canada so your opinion is already suspect.
like I said, for some strange reason you have something against quality - I do live in one of the top three cities in the world (Not merely the best city in the US) ;)
I have an opposition to dreary weather.
Quote from: Maximus on September 27, 2012, 03:08:52 PM
I only have statistics to go off, which give it an average of over 300 hours of sunshine per month in the summer months.
Sunshine needs to be rare to be appreciated, otherwise it's just grating.
Well it isn't really very sunny. I lived in the sunniest neighborhood and it still wasn't all that sunny.
Also per this, doesn't look supper sunny as its barely above Memphis and Jacksonville - while lower than Oklahoma City.
http://www.currentresults.com/Weather/US/average-annual-sunshine-by-city.php
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2012, 03:46:44 PM
Also per this, doesn't look supper sunny as its barely above Memphis and Jacksonville - while lower than Oklahoma City.
Is this meant to reassure me?
Quote from: Maximus on September 27, 2012, 03:08:52 PM
I only have statistics to go off, which give it an average of over 300 hours of sunshine per month in the summer months.
Sunshine needs to be rare to be appreciated, otherwise it's just grating.
Don't come here. I get 320 or so DAYS of sunshine a year. :lol:
300 hours is 12.5 days a month of sunshine. :huh:
Quote from: Maximus on September 27, 2012, 03:59:59 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2012, 03:46:44 PM
Also per this, doesn't look supper sunny as its barely above Memphis and Jacksonville - while lower than Oklahoma City.
Is this meant to reassure me?
My apologies. I forgot that I was dealing with a Canadian.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2012, 04:03:11 PM
300 hours is 12.5 days a month of sunshine. :huh:
Surely 10 hours per day on average would be a better metric ?
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2012, 03:43:22 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2012, 03:23:53 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2012, 02:21:14 PM
Oh and CC, you voluntarily live in Canada so your opinion is already suspect.
like I said, for some strange reason you have something against quality - I do live in one of the top three cities in the world (Not merely the best city in the US) ;)
I have an opposition to dreary weather.
How much time have actually spent in Seattle/Pacific NW anyways?
Just went to this site and it looks like something around 300 hours is pretty common for most US cities during summer. :huh:
http://www.weather-and-climate.com/average-monthly-Rainfall-Temperature-Sunshine,Chicago,United-States-of-America
Quote from: katmai on September 27, 2012, 04:11:34 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2012, 03:43:22 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 27, 2012, 03:23:53 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2012, 02:21:14 PM
Oh and CC, you voluntarily live in Canada so your opinion is already suspect.
like I said, for some strange reason you have something against quality - I do live in one of the top three cities in the world (Not merely the best city in the US) ;)
I have an opposition to dreary weather.
How much time have actually spent in Seattle/Pacific NW anyways?
Across all times? About 2 weeks and dreary weather is still dreary. That said - I like Vancouver.
:lol:
Quote from: mongers on September 27, 2012, 04:10:32 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2012, 04:03:11 PM
300 hours is 12.5 days a month of sunshine. :huh:
Surely 10 hours per day on average would be a better metric ?
Yours could lead people to think most of their waking hours will be sunny.
Which I suppose begs the question of whether Max's stat is only including daylight hours. Pretty sure it isn't.
Quote from: katmai on September 27, 2012, 04:16:34 PM
:lol:
Did you think I'd lived there or vacationed there extensively? :unsure:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2012, 04:20:10 PM
Which I suppose begs the question of whether Max's stat is only including daylight hours. Pretty sure it isn't.
Yeah I wonder if it is really describing non-cloudy hours.
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2012, 04:21:11 PM
Quote from: katmai on September 27, 2012, 04:16:34 PM
:lol:
Did you think I'd lived there or vacationed there extensively? :unsure:
No I knew from your comments you had spent little time there if at all. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2012, 04:20:10 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 27, 2012, 04:10:32 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2012, 04:03:11 PM
300 hours is 12.5 days a month of sunshine. :huh:
Surely 10 hours per day on average would be a better metric ?
Yours could lead people to think most of their waking hours will be sunny.
Which I suppose begs the question of whether Max's stat is only including daylight hours. Pretty sure it isn't.
Which would be largely correct for a summer month with 300hs sunshine.
Non-daylight hours that are sunny ? :blink:
Quote from: katmai on September 27, 2012, 04:24:11 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2012, 04:21:11 PM
Quote from: katmai on September 27, 2012, 04:16:34 PM
:lol:
Did you think I'd lived there or vacationed there extensively? :unsure:
No I knew from your comments you had spent little time there if at all. :)
With all the places in the world to visit - I think 2 weeks was pretty generous for a general region that had already disappointed me.
I'd wager that most people who hate Los Angeles have spent less than 2 weeks there. ;)
Quote from: mongers on September 27, 2012, 04:26:28 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2012, 04:20:10 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 27, 2012, 04:10:32 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2012, 04:03:11 PM
300 hours is 12.5 days a month of sunshine. :huh:
Surely 10 hours per day on average would be a better metric ?
Yours could lead people to think most of their waking hours will be sunny.
Which I suppose begs the question of whether Max's stat is only including daylight hours. Pretty sure it isn't.
Which would be largely correct for a summer month with 300hs sunshine.
Which doesn't make any sense - as there is no way that an SF summer consists of 10 hours a day of sunshine. That would mean that SF is always sunny during the day in summer.
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2012, 04:09:56 PM
My apologies. I forgot that I was dealing with a Canadian.
I don't see how that's relevant as the places I grew up in had similar amounts of sunshine as those you listed. That was my point-- they're all continental climates which are expected to have lots of sunshine and which San Francisco is not.
Quote from: Maximus on September 27, 2012, 04:37:03 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2012, 04:09:56 PM
My apologies. I forgot that I was dealing with a Canadian.
I don't see how that's relevant as the places I grew up in had similar amounts of sunshine as those you listed. That was my point-- they're all continental climates which are expected to have lots of sunshine and which San Francisco is not.
Because all of your compatriots seem to like what I'd call gloomy weather and temps. :D
I'm not sure I follow as San Francisco falls into Mediterranean climate - so one would expect a lot of sun...except that SF throws a curveball and actually has a lot less sun then its neighboring surroundings.
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2012, 04:30:51 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 27, 2012, 04:26:28 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2012, 04:20:10 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 27, 2012, 04:10:32 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2012, 04:03:11 PM
300 hours is 12.5 days a month of sunshine. :huh:
Surely 10 hours per day on average would be a better metric ?
Yours could lead people to think most of their waking hours will be sunny.
Which I suppose begs the question of whether Max's stat is only including daylight hours. Pretty sure it isn't.
Which would be largely correct for a summer month with 300hs sunshine.
Which doesn't make any sense - as there is no way that an SF summer consists of 10 hours a day of sunshine. That would mean that SF is always sunny during the day in summer.
No your underestimating how long a summers day is, in SF at high summer the day is 14 hours 45 minutes long.
:mellow:
Have you ever been to San Francisco mongers?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2012, 04:58:21 PM
:mellow:
Have you ever been to San Francisco mongers?
Which bit of San Francisco would be the apposite question.
Quote from: mongers on September 27, 2012, 04:53:22 PM
No your underestimating how long a summers day is, in SF at high summer the day is 14 hours 45 minutes long.
Fairish point though I think what I said still stands. It isn't very likely that most of the day in summer in SF is sunny unless one uses a very loose definition of sunshine.
Quote from: mongers on September 27, 2012, 05:14:35 PM
Which bit of San Francisco would be the apposite question.
The part that faces the sun during the day.
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2012, 05:18:30 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 27, 2012, 04:53:22 PM
No your underestimating how long a summers day is, in SF at high summer the day is 14 hours 45 minutes long.
Fairish point though I think what I said still stands. It isn't very likely that most of the day in summer in SF is sunny unless one uses a very loose definition of sunshine.
I think in large part the confusion is because of where the main weather station in SF is situated, I'd bet it's probably on one of the hills in the sunnier parts of town, whereas you and others are fondly remember one of the more foggy micro-climates nearer the shoreline etc.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2012, 04:20:10 PM
Which I suppose begs the question of whether Max's stat is only including daylight hours. Pretty sure it isn't.
I'm pretty sure it is. If you look at the data there's a strong correlation between number of sunshine hours and the number of daylight hours in a month. Taking a look at the same data for Chicago, since I'm more familiar with the weather there, it has 3 times more sunshine hours in July than in December. I'm pretty sure there isn't actually that much difference in cloud coverage, but the change in daylight hours could explain it.
Ah it appears that wiki agrees with Mongers:
QuoteBecause of its sharp topography and maritime influences, San Francisco exhibits a multitude of distinct microclimates. The high hills in the geographic center of the city are responsible for a 20% variance in annual rainfall between different parts of the city. They also protect neighborhoods directly to their east from the foggy and sometimes very cold and windy conditions experienced in the Sunset District; for those who live on the eastern side of the city, San Francisco is sunnier, with an average of 260 clear days, and only 105 cloudy days per year.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 27, 2012, 01:53:05 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2012, 10:49:45 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 27, 2012, 10:44:54 AM
Seattle #2! :yeah:
Which is so clearly a lie.
I don't know why, has everything going for it: rainy and gloomy most of the time, plenty of coffee shops and Asian chicks. Sounds like a winner to me.
To speak on demographics...I was checking out the website for my old elementary school the other day (which is in one of the wealthier suburban neighborhoods)...enrollment for 2010-2011 was 51% Asian.
Quote from: mongers on September 27, 2012, 05:28:25 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2012, 05:18:30 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 27, 2012, 04:53:22 PM
No your underestimating how long a summers day is, in SF at high summer the day is 14 hours 45 minutes long.
Fairish point though I think what I said still stands. It isn't very likely that most of the day in summer in SF is sunny unless one uses a very loose definition of sunshine.
I think in large part the confusion is because of where the main weather station in SF is situated, I'd bet it's probably on one of the hills in the sunnier parts of town, whereas you and others are fondly remember one of the more foggy micro-climates nearer the shoreline etc.
That's fair. Also I don't fondly remember those parts at all - it's why I lived in the sunny neighborhood. :P
Quote from: Maximus on September 27, 2012, 05:29:19 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2012, 04:20:10 PM
Which I suppose begs the question of whether Max's stat is only including daylight hours. Pretty sure it isn't.
I'm pretty sure it is. If you look at the data there's a strong correlation between number of sunshine hours and the number of daylight hours in a month. Taking a look at the same data for Chicago, since I'm more familiar with the weather there, it has 3 times more sunshine hours in July than in December. I'm pretty sure there isn't actually that much difference in cloud coverage, but the change in daylight hours could explain it.
Cloud cover can vary quite a bit, trust me I'm a Brit; in December 1890 London's offical total number of hours of sunshine was zero, yes Zero for the whole month. :bowler:
Quote from: mongers on September 27, 2012, 05:45:10 PM
Cloud cover can vary quite a bit, trust me I'm a Brit; in December 1890 London's offical total number of hours of sunshine was zero, yes Zero for the whole month. :bowler:
I'm not saying it can't, I'm saying it doesn't in Chicago.
Quote from: Valmy on September 27, 2012, 11:35:36 AM
Really? Cleveland in the top 50? LOL.
There's no way anyone who has been to Cleveland anytime in the recent past would rank it in the top 50. :lol: This whole list is therefore garbage.
Quote from: Caliga on September 27, 2012, 06:50:11 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 27, 2012, 11:35:36 AM
Really? Cleveland in the top 50? LOL.
There's no way anyone who has been to Cleveland anytime in the recent past would rank it in the top 50. :lol: This whole list is therefore garbage.
Only thing they might have taken account is the economic boomlet going on up there. IIRC, unemployment is below 5 % up there.
Would I live in Cleveland? Not a chance.
Cleveland may very well be a dump (never been), but you sure there are 50 US cities that are better?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2012, 07:07:05 PM
Cleveland may very well be a dump (never been), but you sure there are 50 US cities that are better?
Depends on how large the city has to be.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2012, 07:07:05 PM
Cleveland may very well be a dump (never been), but you sure there are 50 US cities that are better?
Depends on how big they have to be to qualify. There are thousands of places that are technically cities.
Down to the second. Nice. :cool:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 27, 2012, 07:23:18 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 27, 2012, 07:07:05 PM
Cleveland may very well be a dump (never been), but you sure there are 50 US cities that are better?
Depends on how big they have to be to qualify. There are thousands of places that are technically cities.
Though I'm not sure we have to go that far. I mean this wiki has the list of those over 100,000. I think I can easily pick out 50 better than Cleveland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population
Clearly you people didn't watch the clip I linked earlier. :rolleyes: