| Author |
Message |
    
Duncan
Real Name
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 1375
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 6:24 am: |     |
Money Magazine, out with its "Best Places to Live" for 2004 has dispensed with M/SO. Nary a mention in the top 26 towns under 100,000 population. Where...oh where..did we go wrong
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take"
Wayne Gretzky |
bobk
Citizen
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4179
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 6:50 am: | |
Here is the link to the website for Money:
http://money.cnn.com/best/bplive/cities_table/
It looks like this year they went for more affluent, homogeneous towns such as Rockaway, Bernards, Manalapan, etc. 
New editor? |
ML1
Citizen
Username: Ml1
Post Number: 1443
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 9:11 am: | |
These aren't the "best" places to live, they're the "hottest." The ranking is based on median income + population growth since 1990.
|
NRL
Citizen
Username: Nrl
Post Number: 418
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 9:15 am: | |
They probably looked at MOl's soapbox and thought "who the hell would want to live there with those psychos walking around?"
|
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 2622
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 9:22 am: | |
They used census data to find "highest median household incomes in the nation and above average population growth". Under those criteria, a new McMansion subdivision would be the optimal place to live. Who set the conditions for Money Magazine this year, Charles Murray? |
shh
Citizen
Username: Shh
Post Number: 833
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 10:08 am: | |
Manalapan?
|
ML1
Citizen
Username: Ml1
Post Number: 1444
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 10:13 am: | |
If you're using explosive population growth as a criterion, you're really describing the "worst" places to live in America.
Constant construction, overburdened schools, roads that weren't built to hold the increase in traffic...
Who needs it? |
notehead
Citizen
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 813
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 11:47 am: | |
Hell, you drive around nearby parts of West Orange, Livingston, etc., and developers are continuing to cram more ugly condos and McHouses into every possible crevice. Yeah, great, we really need more cars on our roads and more strip malls to cater to the abject consumerism that passes for culture around here. Growth in our neighborhoods is quite "hot" enough, thanks.
(Didn't McGreevey promise to do something about overdevelopment?) |
greenetree
Citizen
Username: Greenetree
Post Number: 1923
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 3:10 pm: | |
I would count high income & low population growth as a hot place to live! What's interesting is that I have customers in many of those places & have been to quite a few. There are also a lot of Corporate office parks and everything that Notehead describes.
That may be desirable to some people & those places are great. I have a coworker in Eden Prairie (on the list for Central). His wife is a SAHM with an infant and toddler & they own a summer cabin in the lake country nearby. The lifestyle is wonderful for them.
But, it wouldn't work for me. In fact, when we went house-hunting a few years ago, we started near some of the places listed in NJ. We ruled them out, because we could see developments starting to go up & signs for 10-20 acre lots for sale. We knew we wanted to buy in an area where there would be no development surprises. Most of those areas now have huge cookie-cutter McMansion developments.
Although, as I look out the window at our several decades old garage that is being lifted off the ground by the 100 y/o Oak tree right behind it, and realize that in about 3-5 years we will have to do something about it, I understand the appeal of new construction!
And Notehead has a point. I'm waiting for people to start subdividing their garages and putting in McCondos in this area . |
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1601
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 3:24 pm: | |
Did Money really use population growth as a reason to cite Maplewood last year? I am under the impression that the population of Maplewood has been fairly stable for a very long time.
Tom Reingold
There is nothing
|
argon_smythe
Citizen
Username: Argon_smythe
Post Number: 98
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 2, 2004 - 10:44 am: | |
On the other hand, do you really need a magazine to tell you that Rumson (high income / low growth) is a desirable neighborhood? I'll bet the folks living in places like that would be willing to pay the magazine to keep their towns out of the list.
|
ML1
Citizen
Username: Ml1
Post Number: 1446
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Friday, January 2, 2004 - 10:59 am: | |
Tom,
no, Money used different criteria last year. it was a completely different article. It was about "best" places, not "hot" places, as this year's article is.
Last year's article used a wide array of quality of life measures (proximity to cultural/entertainment activities, access to health care facilities, income, crime rate, education, etc.), although the choices seemed, in the end, fairly subjective. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page