As the editors of Outside explain, researchers at the magazine started with the 100 most populated cities in the United States, then rated them all on cost of living, unemployment,
nightlife, commute time, and access to green space and other publicly available information. And the winners are, counting down from 10 to 1:
10. Charlotte, North Carolina
9. Cincinnati, Ohio
8. Minneapolis, Minnesota
7. Portland, Oregon
6. Albuquerque, New Mexico
5. Boston, Massachusetts
4. Austin, Texas
3. Atlanta, Georgia
2. Seattle, Washington
1. Colorado Springs, Colorado
Wow, I am happy to see Boston up there, but I live in Boston and I don’t think I would have included it on that list. Anyone else have an opinion on this?
Atlanta # 3. Someone’s smoking wacky tobacca!
I live in TX. and i wouldn’t give u 2cents for Austin. Raised in Boston driving in Austin is teh worst city to drive in. What happened to the DFW area?
Atlanta? Lousy air to breathe…costly…and a nightmare for traffic.
I whole heartedly agree with the commenters regarding the ridiculous rating of cities in Outside Magazine. I do agree that Colorado Springs, Albuquerque, and Portland should be on the list, but the others??? We should not be surprised that Outside Magazine is as vulnerable as anyone to be biased (for whatever reason)in creating lists like these, and for their poll to pose as science. Ho ho ho
atlanta does suck! the culture there is NOT outdoorsy at all.. i live an hour away.. but seattle and portland are good- i’m from washington- the cultures there are very outdoorsy and they have lots to do.