(Ross Creek)
Criteria for making these lists are so broad that any one city in America probably could brag to be “best” at something, whether that be powder days, single track, libraries, coffee shops, job prospects, health care, or fusion tacos. Some cities actually score high in all of those categories but also feature other aspects which render them practically unlivable.
Usually when I see a “best cities” listing, half of the entries make perfect sense and the other half seem perfectly senseless. The authors of these lists seem to know because some of the entry descriptions include telling phrases like “best-kept secret” and “surprise” and other qualifiers.
This month Outside named Missoula in its top list of “River Cities”. Sitting at the junction of the Blackfoot, the Bitterroot, and the Clark Fork, this came as no surprise and so you think smugly how great Missoula really is. Then you see the winner – Richmond, Va. – and note that Nashville ranked higher than Jackson (as in Hole). You also read the fine print, which says entries were picked based on a reader write-in campaign, and note that greater Richmond, which got 46% of the vote, has 1.2 million people; Missoula, with 6%, has 65,000. Don’t even get me started on Nashville.
Anyway, in the write-up, someone was quoted saying Missoula is the place people choose to live “when they can live anywhere they want”. When we moved to Missoula we thought we were in the same frame of mind: being homeless and jobless, we literally could move anywhere we want – as long as it was snowy, close to skiing, close to wilderness, close to an airport, had a walkable downtown, had jobs, had affordable homes... - well, you get the picture.
So, yeah, anywhere, but no, not exactly anywhere. If you have to do a survey based on volume of reader responses, I'd like to see one where readers can't vote for the town the live in. Who ever says, I've lived here my whole life, and it blows!
No comments:
Post a Comment