<p>(Excerpt from this blog: [Pink</a> Slip: We’re Number 9! Worcester named 9th most livable city in the US](<a href=“http://pinkslipblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/we-number-9-worcester-named-9th-most.html]Pink”>Pink Slip: We're Number 9! Worcester named 9th most livable city in the US))</p>
<p>Well, I have to say I was just bit surprised to hear that Worcester - yes, that Worcester: Wuh-stah, Wormtown, the Heart of the Commonwealth - ranked number 9 on a Forbes list of livable U.S. cities. My first thought was: what were the criteria? Clearly, availability of interesting places to shop; number of steep hills impossible to drive on during icy weather; and percentage of high school seniors who agree with the statement “I don’t care where I go to college, as long as it’s somewhere other than Worcester” weren’t part of the statistical mix that went into this pick.</p>
<p>In fact, the cities were chosen by assigning ratings to:</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Here are the vitals listed for Worcester, with the rankings vis a vis the 379 cities evaluated in parentheses:</p>
<p>Metro Population: 787,000
Income Growth: 3.5% (No. 145 of 379)
Cost of Living Index: 106.1 (No. 147 of 379)
Culture Index: 98 (No. 7 of 379, tie)
Crime per 100,000: 2,334 (No. 29 of 379)
Unemployment: 7.8% (No. 13 of 379)</p>
<p>I love the “Culture Index” rating - whatever it means. Cambridge may have ranked higher than Worcester overall - it came in 7th - but Worcester had 'em beat on culture. Cambridge was number 11th in this category. Take that, Cambridge snobs!</p>
<p>As with most/all such rankings, they’re wildly interesting but fundamentally arbitrary and a little dumb. Although I can’t argue with Portland, Maine’s landing at Number 1. This is one very nice little city, and every time I visit I’m reminded that I could live there quite nicely. Yes, Portland strikes me as very livable.</p>
<p>As, in fact, does Worcester. Likable, lovable, and livable. Although I don’t particularly want to live there, I don’t think it would be a bad place to live. And it’s an excellent place to be from. </p>
<p>What it does have going for it is, in fact, culture. Among other things, the Worcester Art Museum is a complete gem. </p>
<p>It also has some beautiful neighborhoods, none of which I ever lived in, with some beautiful old houses that are a lot cheaper than equivalent beautiful old houses closer to Boston. Not that Worcester’s that far from Boston: 50 miles - just a breeze down the Mass Pike. </p>
<p>Worcester also has great restaurants, few traffic jams, lots of colleges, and a minor league baseball team, the Tornadoes, peculiarly named after a devastating 1953 storm in which nearly 100 people were killed, including a baby that was spun out of his mother’s arms as she ran for safety.</p>
<p>So, where else besides Portland, Cambridge, and Worcester is up there in the Forbes list?</p>
<p>Take a look at the Top 15:</p>
<li>Portland, ME </li>
<li>Bethesda, MD </li>
<li>Des Moines, IA </li>
<li>Stamford/Bridgeport, CT </li>
<li>Tulsa, OK </li>
<li>Oklahoma City, OK </li>
<li>Cambridge, MA </li>
<li>Baltimore, MD </li>
<li>Worcester, MA </li>
<li>Pittsburgh, PA </li>
<li>Denver, CO </li>
<li>Harrisburg, PA </li>
<li>Madison, WI </li>
<li>Peabody, MA </li>
<li>Little Rock, AR</li>
</ol>