Only a dozen of the 100 largest metro areas in the U.S. fared worse than Southern California in a U.S. News & World Report livability ranking.
Southern California’s five-county region ranked 88th in this year’s edition of the magazine’s “best places to live” rankings based on everything from economic and demographic data to crime stats and opinion poll results. A year ago, Southern California ranked 83rd.
How low is this? Southern California this year was ranked between two ailing Rust Belt cities: Youngstown, Ohio, and Detroit.
Many of these regional livability rankings can treat California cities poorly by over-emphasizing various costs of living. High expenses are a major problem for many Californians.
But California areas did reasonably well by U.S. News math – with high marks for by San Jose, ranked third; San Francisco, 16th; and San Diego at No. 22.
Other California metro rankings weren’t so hot: Santa Rosa, 52; Sacramento, 66; Fresno, 96; Bakersfield, 97; Stockton, 98; and Modesto, 99.
Overall, Southern California – the nation’s second-most populated metro area comprising Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura counties – got its poor grade with a 5.9 out of 10 score. Top-scoring metros were Austin, Texas, at 7.8 and Denver at 7.5.
The region’s costly living outweighed its strong economy and attractiveness.
Southern California got good marks for the local job market, 6.8 out of 10, and its desirability and quality of life, both rated 6.6. But the SoCal allure measured by “net migration” – departures minus arrivals – was only a 5.8 out of 10. And pricey living created a woeful score of 4.2.
“Free-spirited hope and relentless ambition is the defining characteristic,” of the region’s residents, U.S. News wrote. “Just as surely as the positive platitudes are true, so are the negative ones. Notorious traffic jams and hours of delays are the norm.”
Contact the writer: jlansner@scng.com
Our editors found this article on this site using Google and regenerated it for our readers.
