Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

The_sandlapper

South's Healthiest Cities

Recommended Posts

Dont know howmany of you guys read men's health but I think it's a decent magazine. Anyway the Feb. 2006 issue displays the top 100 healthy-unhealthy cities in America. Men's Health has the top 100. Here are the top in the South.

Don't get mad if your city isn't listed ;) Those in () means national ranking. See Men's Health for further details.

1. Austin (3)

2. Raleigh (21)

3. Charlotte (31)

4. Dallas (34)

5. Orlando (40)

6. Atlanta (41)

7. Miami (44)

8. Columbia (46)

9. Durham (51)

10. El Paso (55) (I know but it's in a southern state)

11. Arllington, TX (56)

12. Lubbock, TX (60)

13. St. Petersburg (62)

14. Ft. Worth (63)

15. Greensboro (66)

16. Richmond (68)

17. Jacksonville (70)

18. Baton Rouge (72)

19. Lexington (74)

20. San Antonio (75)

Question, concerns, protest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Oh I'm mad buddy, I'm mad. Okay just kidding. :D I thought it was interesting that Texas cities seem to be well represented. Not trying to say Texas isn't a healthy state or anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I'm going to protest...where is my hometown? How did Cola make the list without Chas? Chas has been ranked as one of the most walkable cities in America, which is usually one measurement in rankings for healthy cities. It also has the highest singles population in the state...which usually signifies young, professional people who eat well and get alot of exercise. I believe Chas has the highest percentage of health club members in the state.

The recreational facilities in Chas outnumber Cola's. I'm not bashing Cola; Cola does not have as much access to the water (Lake Murray is severely limited) and Chas has an intricate system of county parks that offer a great variety of healthy activities. Maybe Chas didn't get included because "officially" the population is not above 100,000? What gives?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only walkable portion of Charleston is the historic pennisula area and the vast majority of residents in the area can't afford to live there. Most of the rest of the Charleston metro is all automobile dependent sprawl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only walkable portion of Charleston is the historic pennisula area and the vast majority of residents in the area can't afford to live there. Most of the rest of the Charleston metro is all automobile dependent sprawl.

Regardless, it has been ranked as one of America's most walkable cities...I just can't remember who did the study. And no, it is not all auto sprawl...it has many walking and biking trails throughout the entire city, and do not forget access to rivers and the beach. Many residents run, walk, and swim around these areas.

BTW, I think the study refers to the cities themselves, not MSAs. If that were the case, Cola and Atlanta would not be included.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet more cola cheerleading I see :whistling:

Anywho, I'm shocked it's on the list, seeing how hellishly hot & humid it is there (that doesn't lend itself to physical, outdoor activity). Combine that with our state's penchant for fried, rich foods, and I'm even more shocked.

if I found a list that showed columbia was tops in the numbers of flatulating adults, should I post that? :rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My cheering upsets you,that's too bad I guess. I'm okay with it, and as long as the city makes a national list on something I will post it! Go Columbia Go!!!!!!!! :thumbsup:

Anyway, I don't know why Cola was included and Charleston didn't, I know Charleston's pop. is over 100K not sure what the criteria was?

C-O-L-U-M-B-I-A, what's that spell Columbia, go team! :yahoo:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only walkable portion of Charleston is the historic pennisula area and the vast majority of residents in the area can't afford to live there. Most of the rest of the Charleston metro is all automobile dependent sprawl.

And that walkable portion of Charleston is still far larger & more enjoyable than even the half-walkable areas of Atlanta or Charlotte. And of course the larger majority of those two cities are even more automobile oriented sprawl than Charleston is. Charleston is still a relatively small urban area, despite the development spring up along I 26 & across the sea islands (as unfortunate as that is).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Upon reading the article, one of the reasons that San Fran was ranked the healthiest included the general diet of the city. Most of the city is known for and has an abundance of seafood.

OK, with that point in mind, again, how the heck did Cola rank highest in this state? Let's see, the city is known for its abundance of delis, pizza joints, and BBQ places. I don't mean that disparingingly, it is just a fact. Cola does not have a wide variety of seafood restaurants except for places that have mostly fried seafood (Harbor Inn, for example). Whereas my hometown is known throughout the Southeast for its seafood...it has been called the "San Francisco of the South". Chas has many healthy eating establishments, especially in the seafood category, so how do these rankings make any sense?

I really do think the magazine only used 2000 Census populations. Chas had technically not cracked 100,000 during that census, and Cola had. Still, St. Pete and Jax have far more seafood eateries as well. Alot of things are not adding up. Then again, what's new when it comes to many rankings? <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Upon reading the article, one of the reasons that San Fran was ranked the healthiest included the general diet of the city. Most of the city is known for and has an abundance of seafood.

OK, with that point in mind, again, how the heck did Cola rank highest in this state? Let's see, the city is known for its abundance of delis, pizza joints, and BBQ places. I don't mean that disparingingly, it is just a fact. Cola does not have a wide variety of seafood restaurants except for places that have mostly fried seafood (Harbor Inn, for example). Whereas my hometown is known throughout the Southeast for its seafood...it has been called the "San Francisco of the South". Chas has many healthy eating establishments, especially in the seafood category, so how do these rankings make any sense?

I really do think the magazine only used 2000 Census populations. Chas had technically not cracked 100,000 during that census, and Cola had. Still, St. Pete and Jax have far more seafood eateries as well. Alot of things are not adding up. Then again, what's new when it comes to many rankings? <_<

I don't think you can oversimplify it to just the number of seafood joints in a city to justify its ranking (or lack thereof). One thing Columbia is known to have is a bunch of parks--a lot for a city its size, if you ask me. That factors into the whole healthy aspect. But if anything, as you've stated, Charleston probably wasn't listed because as of the 2000 Census, the population wasn't yet 100,000. At any rate, this is simply one publication's list. I just say take it for what it's worth.

And about the "hellishly hot and humid" thing, that really is played out. People aren't flocking away from the city in droves because of that, and it sure as hell doesn't keep them in the house. You've got 3 rivers and a large lake to splash around in at any time. Plus, you simply get used to it.

While we're speaking of rankings here, here's another one I found online: America's Worst Cities for Respiratory Infections. Unfortunately, the South dominates this list (with one of SC's metros listed first :shok: ):

1. Greenville, SC

2. Nashville, TN

3. Birmingham, AL

4. Oklahoma City, OK

5. Greensboro, NC

6. Little Rock, AR

7. Dallas, TX

8. Dayton, OH

9. Jacksonville, FL

10. Charlotte, NC

11. Tampa, FL

12. Saint Louis, MO

13. Atlanta, GA

14. Columbus, OH

15. Richmond, VA

16. Philadelphia, PA

17. Cincinnati, OH

18. Orlando, FL

19. Houston, TX

20. Memphis, TN

21. West Palm, FL

22. Cleveland, OH

23. Las Vegas, NV

24. Salt Lake City, UT

25. New Orleans, LA

26. Kansas City, MO

27. Milwaukee, WI

28. Indianapolis, IN

29. Chicago, IL

30. Louisville, KY

31. Pittsburgh, PA

32. Baltimore, MD

33. Denver, CO

34. New York, NY

35. Albany, NY

36. Miami, FL

37. San Antonio, TX

38. Detroit, MI

39. Washington, DC

40. Norfolk, VA

41. Boston, MA

42. Albuquerque, NM

43. Hartford, CT

44. Seattle, WA

45. Phoenix, AZ

46. Buffalo, NY

47. Portland, OR

48. Los Angeles, CA

49. Minneapolis, MN

50. Sacramento, CA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont take these rankings or list too seriously or personally. I just simply use them as a way of saying hey my hometown is doing its thing too! Iv'e said before years ago Columbia couldn't even fathom being listed along side some of these cities in such national list. I just think the area is starting to get a little sunshine its way and obviously other outsiders do too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you can oversimplify it to just the number of seafood joints in a city to justify its ranking (or lack thereof). One thing Columbia is known to have is a bunch of parks--a lot for a city its size, if you ask me. That factors into the whole healthy aspect. But if anything, as you've stated, Charleston probably wasn't listed because as of the 2000 Census, the population wasn't yet 100,000. At any rate, this is simply one publication's list. I just say take it for what it's worth.

And about the "hellishly hot and humid" thing, that really is played out. People aren't flocking away from the city in droves because of that, and it sure as hell doesn't keep them in the house. You've got 3 rivers and a large lake to splash around in at any time. Plus, you simply get used to it.

While we're speaking of rankings here, here's another one I found online: America's Worst Cities for Respiratory Infections. Unfortunately, the South dominates this list (with one of SC's metros listed first :shok: ):

1. Greenville, SC

2. Nashville, TN

3. Birmingham, AL

4. Oklahoma City, OK

5. Greensboro, NC

6. Little Rock, AR

7. Dallas, TX

8. Dayton, OH

9. Jacksonville, FL

10. Charlotte, NC

11. Tampa, FL

12. Saint Louis, MO

13. Atlanta, GA

14. Columbus, OH

15. Richmond, VA

16. Philadelphia, PA

17. Cincinnati, OH

18. Orlando, FL

19. Houston, TX

20. Memphis, TN

21. West Palm, FL

22. Cleveland, OH

23. Las Vegas, NV

24. Salt Lake City, UT

25. New Orleans, LA

26. Kansas City, MO

27. Milwaukee, WI

28. Indianapolis, IN

29. Chicago, IL

30. Louisville, KY

31. Pittsburgh, PA

32. Baltimore, MD

33. Denver, CO

34. New York, NY

35. Albany, NY

36. Miami, FL

37. San Antonio, TX

38. Detroit, MI

39. Washington, DC

40. Norfolk, VA

41. Boston, MA

42. Albuquerque, NM

43. Hartford, CT

44. Seattle, WA

45. Phoenix, AZ

46. Buffalo, NY

47. Portland, OR

48. Los Angeles, CA

49. Minneapolis, MN

50. Sacramento, CA

I assume that this list includes allergies, and if so, I am not surprised that Greenville is ranked #1. I have heard that people's allergies can be problematic in the Greenville area because of its location at the foothills of the mountains. I'm sure it has something to do with the way it's situated, the location of plant life, and the way the wind blows. :P

Also, I recently saw that list of healthiest cities in Men's Health. Greenville is never one of the cities they include, and I concluded that it's because they go by city limit populations. Greenville's 60,000 city population prevents it from being included, whereas if Men's Health went by metro population Greenville's 600,000+ would surely be included (and certainly if the 2000 MSA definition were included, the GSP area of around 1 million would be there).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you can oversimplify it to just the number of seafood joints in a city to justify its ranking (or lack thereof). One thing Columbia is known to have is a bunch of parks--a lot for a city its size, if you ask me. That factors into the whole healthy aspect. But if anything, as you've stated, Charleston probably wasn't listed because as of the 2000 Census, the population wasn't yet 100,000. At any rate, this is simply one publication's list. I just say take it for what it's worth.

And about the "hellishly hot and humid" thing, that really is played out. People aren't flocking away from the city in droves because of that, and it sure as hell doesn't keep them in the house. You've got 3 rivers and a large lake to splash around in at any time. Plus, you simply get used to it....

Well, I wasn't too concerned with the heat and humidity factors for the very reasons that you stated. Chas has the same kind of heat and humidity...what cools the area down a little bit is the ocean breeze because of the city's close proximity. But I wasn't oversimplifying the ranking based on seafood joints. Remember, the magazine article stated that this aspect is one of the major reasons why San Fran was rated the healthiest city in the nation.

However, you proved my point about Chas diverse opportunities for aquatic recreation. The city as access to 3 large rivers as well as the Intercoastal Waterway, numerous beaches and coastline, and even some lakes for skiing such as Trophy Lakes. The county recreation system is one of the most advanced in the state offering pristine areas for water recreation as well as biking, hiking, and even wall-climbing. Chas has a large number of parks for a city its size, as well. So again, I still wonder why it wasn't listed in the rankings. The only explanation that makes sense is that the city was not over 100,000 people until after the 2000 Census.

I guess the ranking is not a big deal, but it does at least provide favorable or unfavorable impressions of cities. I was disappointed to see that my hometown's namesake in WV was rated the unhealthiest city in the nation. Keep that in mind, everybody...it was Charleston, WV! :blush:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read other health / sports activity magazines that have spotlighted Charleston SC as being a great city to live in regarding outdoor activities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I have as well. I also forgot some other amenities such as the city's penchant for tennis. The city is becoming a tennis mecca with the Family Circle Cup. A major recreational tennis center and stadium is home to the Cup, and it is available year-round. The city also has several year-round swimming pools and other tennis facilities.

A thought just occurred to me...if they ranked Chas, WV as the unhealthiest city in the nation, then the cities ranked are not constrained to 100K+. The capital of WV is smaller than my hometown and has been for a considerable amount of years. Chas, SC had to have been rated as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I have as well. I also forgot some other amenities such as the city's penchant for tennis. The city is becoming a tennis mecca with the Family Circle Cup. A major recreational tennis center and stadium is home to the Cup, and it is available year-round. The city also has several year-round swimming pools and other tennis facilities.

A thought just occurred to me...if they ranked Chas, WV as the unhealthiest city in the nation, then the cities ranked are not constrained to 100K+. The capital of WV is smaller than my hometown and has been for a considerable amount of years. Chas, SC had to have been rated as well.

Oops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.