That's interesting, #56 is Missouri City, TX - a suburb of Houston.

Houston is the place with no planning, y'know - "what do you want Portland to be - Houston?"

Yea but, they also skipped NM, MS, AL, LA and GA.

Portland is above such rankings.

Just ask any idiot planner or politician in sight around here.

Good.

Getting listed in these things is only good for two things - stroking local government ego (which gets done plenty already), and attracting chumps that want to live somewhere that is less of a hellhole then their current location.

I'm all for people moving out of hellholes, but what tends to happen is that they congregate to a nice place, and turn it into a hellhole due to increased density, congestion, resource drain, etc.

Bismarck, North Dakota, is in the top 100. I travel back to the Dakotas every couple of years and find the Dakotas to be very pleasant in the late Spring through early Fall. But the winters are brutal. So, eventhough I like places like Bismarck. There's no way I'd ever want to be a full time resident.

It is probably due to the lack of a convention center hotel.

In case you haven't heard, Plymouth, MN is the new Portland!

And I just can't wait to cash in my equity and move to Norman, OK or Naperville, IL!

Plymouth, MN?!

For what its worth, Portland and the Pacific Northwest dominated the NYT's top summer vacation spots this year.

Okay, they picked Ames, IA as a top place to live. Now I know they're f-ing crazy. Ames is like Beaverton, basically a strip mall, although it does have a university.

You know they just have to vary these things up every year. It's like the Princeton Guide--they change their ranking formula for each edition to shuffle up the order and keep the Ivy Leagues guessing.

Good. Oregon needs to go back under the radar. Who gives a crud if the rest of the country thinks we're great or not.

Don, why do you think skyscrapers and bustling urban centers are more desirable than strip malls? Here in Beaverton, my kids are within walking distance of stores, malls, parks and a beautiful greenway. Plus, one can take a midnight walk around my neighborhood with nary a panhandler nor drunken psychopath stalking you.

Hell, Beaverton has one of the best farmer's markets in the state and a great central park complete with fountain. And I'll just bet, Beaverton has less retail/residential vacancies than Portland.

I'm not saying where I live is some nirvana, I could do without the sh***y apartment complexes, but one could do a lot worse than Beaverton.

With the assinine policies and politics of Oregon in general and Portland in particular, one of which is the glaring attempt to force all automobile off the road, why would anyone want to move here, let alone live here?

I'm sorry, but communisitic/socialistic attitudes by the governing body does not make a great place to live and in most cases, quite the opposite is true.

I live in northern CA around San Jose. I'd rather live in Portland - in a heartbeat.

Bark Munster wins Reply of the Week!

I think everybody here should thank their lucky stars for this.

The less people know about how good it is, the fewer who will come.

I remember the selection of Portland as "the nation's most liveable city" in the late 1970s. That was the beginning of the end of Portland as a decent place to live. From my perspective, we were inundated by those attracted (like moths to the flame), and, once they arrived, they tried to remake it...to be more like where they came from. Particularly California and the ill-conceived and poorly promulgated "property tax revolt."

I like bark's comment also.

Didn't we used to be compared to Austin, Texas? -- or something.

Look, housing has sky rocketed, I know it did in many places, but it is hard to afford a home.

It's not San Diego unaffordable, but it got a lot closer in that crazy real estate boom.

If people from southern California stay away because we were ignored, then that is a plus and unfortunately probably moves us up on the list.

Another blog discussed these rankings and noticed an important discrepancy - they factor in the cost of housing, but not the cost of transportation, despite transportation costs being around 25% of the American family's budget.

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post.cgi?id=1046

That could be why all the previous commenters thought the list didn't make much sense - it leaves out a huge factor in people's living choices.