Washington, on a Scale of 1 to ...
Is Washington just a nice place to visit, or should you be glad you're living here, too? It all depends on how you add up the numbers-and which numbers you choose in the first place.</br></br>The D.C. metro area scored an impressive 17th in the most recent edition of Places Rated Almanac, a result of its "outstanding array" of cultural, educational and medical facilities outweighing the high housing costs and crime rate. Another positive factor was a climate that is, believe it or not, considered relatively benign.</br></br>But when three economists-Mark Berger and Glenn Blomquist at the University of Kentucky and John Hoehn at Michigan State University-measured a different set of quality-of-life indicators in what they say is a less subjective fashion, the District did considerably poorer: 155th. That's behind such places as Lubbock, Tex., Erie, Pa., and Atlantic County, N.J., home of Atlantic City.</br></br>Part of the reasons for the difference in D.C.'s score, the economists say, lies in how a community is perceived. When a decision is made to relocate, relatively few people are influenced by the presence of major medical centers, a university or even cultural attractions. Factors such as climate, the quality of secondary schools and the crime rate are much more significant in deciding between cities or even certain parts of one city.</br></br>In other words, it's nice to have the Smithsonian here, but would you pay more for your housing or take a cut in salary because of it? Probably not, although the economists argue that is what the Places Rated ranking implies. On the other hand, the trio places a good deal of emphasis on crime rates, which are a major influence when choosing a city or neighborhood.