Houston fails to make the top 100 list
Money magazine and CNN have released their Top 100 list of the best places in the U.S. to live. Somehow, world-class Houston failed to make the list again this year, while its (relatively) tiny neighbor, Sugar Land ranks third. Even when the subject is restricted to the top 10 "big" cities (300k+), Houston failed to make the list, unlike Austin, which was second, or New York, which came in tenth.
Suburbs were a common sight in the Top 100 listing, as they were close enough to big-city amenities to score high in those categories, while being distant enough to avoid being dinged for the crime rate of their bigger neighbors.
No other Houston suburb made the top 25, but three of Dallas' could be found there: Plano, Richardson, and Carollton. League City and The Woodlands came in at 65 and 73, respectively. Overall, Texas scored more cities in the Top 100 than any other state, with ten.
Houston, when compared to the median in the survey, did not compare very well in many categories.
S L median family income:$101,168
Houston's median income: $43,941
Best Places Average: $62,555
Sugar Land job Growth: 30.53%
Houston's job growth: 5.69%
Best Places Average: 10.46%
Sugar Land personal crime risk: 23
Houston's personal crime risk: 218
Best Places (100 is nat'l avg): 52
Sugar Land property crime risk: 31
Houston's personal crime risk: 204
Best Places (100 is nat'l avg): 80
Sugar Land median commute time: 29.5
Houston's median commute time : 23.4
Best Places median commute : 20.8
Oddly, for "the fattest city in the U.S.", Houston and Sugar Land both manage to score a 25 on the body mass index, while the "best places average" is 27. Go figure. But the part I really have an issue with is "Amount spent on vacations:" $6,523 per year for an average Houston household? And those consumerist Sugar Landers, with their huge SUV's spend $8,614 per year?
Clearly, I am not living right...