USA Today Is Wrong About O'Fallon

A catch-all forum for urban discussion. If it doesn't fit elsewhere, post here.

Late last week, USA Today published an article ostensibly running down a list of the 50 most livable cities in the U.S., looking at factors such as population size, median home value, poverty rate and education to determine which places in America are best to live.

But USA Today really pooped in the punch bowl on this one. O'Fallon, Missouri is ranked No. 8 on the list: surely proof enough that said list is complete bullsh*t. How the hell did they let this happen?

https://m.riverfronttimes.com/artsblog/ ... ut-ofallon
I don't really have a problem with them being high. By their criteria it makes sense. O'Fallon isn't for me but lots of people in this country love the suburbs and suburb wise, O'Fallon is probably a pretty good one. Low crime, cheap housing, good schools, and close enough to St. Louis to go to Forest Park, the airport, and sporting events. For a lot of people O'Fallon is pretty livable. Nothing said it had to be exciting, different, or special in any way to be livable.
jshank83 wrote:I don't really have a problem with them being high. By their criteria it makes sense. O'Fallon isn't for me but lots of people in this country love the suburbs and suburb wise, O'Fallon is probably a pretty good one. Low crime, cheap housing, good schools, and close enough to St. Louis to go to Forest Park, the airport, and sporting events. For a lot of people O'Fallon is pretty livable. Nothing said it had to be exciting, different, or special in any way to be livable.
Is it walkable? Compared to Kirkwood, Webster, downtown, Tower Grove, St Charles, Maplewood, New Town St Charles?


Sent from my QMV7B using Tapatalk

gary kreie wrote:
Fri Oct 20, 2017 3:31 am
jshank83 wrote:I don't really have a problem with them being high. By their criteria it makes sense. O'Fallon isn't for me but lots of people in this country love the suburbs and suburb wise, O'Fallon is probably a pretty good one. Low crime, cheap housing, good schools, and close enough to St. Louis to go to Forest Park, the airport, and sporting events. For a lot of people O'Fallon is pretty livable. Nothing said it had to be exciting, different, or special in any way to be livable.
Is it walkable? Compared to Kirkwood, Webster, downtown, Tower Grove, St Charles, Maplewood, New Town St Charles?


Sent from my QMV7B using Tapatalk
It never said walkable matters. I picked where I live largely based on walkability but for this I don't think they factored it in. Personally, I would have had St. Charles higher just because at least it has the old downtown area and basically is O'Fallon with a little more charm in areas. I am assuming O'Fallon is cheaper though which probably bumped it up.

If it was my list I would put the ones you listed (except downtown) higher than O'Fallon but I would use factors they don't and I also know the area by more than stats, which they probably don't either.
Unfortunately, like much of the United States, it's an extremely unhealthy place to live due to car dependency. That's why walkability matters. Additionally, it's a very homogenous demographic. Diversity in decision making leads to a better community and smarter citizens.
Unfortunately this can be said for 100% of the land area in the St. Louis region. I live downtown with a supposed walk score of 96 and I have to ask a friend to drive me to home depot to buy an extension cord. This should be an article about what makes a great place to live, instead it's click bait based on abstracted data. The latter gets a lot more clicks and leads to zero progression in society.

By the way, Adam Ruins Everything recently covered "The Suburbs".
https://youtu.be/e68CoE70Mk8
This clip covers white flight that followed WW2, but the entire episode is pretty good. If you're any fan of Urban Planning studies, this won't be anything new to you but still nice to hear the statistics and research that backs up these claims.
aprice wrote:
Fri Oct 20, 2017 9:48 am
Unfortunately, like much of the United States, it's an extremely unhealthy place to live due to car dependency. That's why walkability matters. Additionally, it's a very homogenous demographic. Diversity in decision making leads to a better community and smarter citizens.
Unfortunately this can be said for 100% of the land area in the St. Louis region. I live downtown with a supposed walk score of 96 and I have to ask a friend to drive me to home depot to buy an extension cord. This should be an article about what makes a great place to live, instead it's click bait based on abstracted data. The latter gets a lot more clicks and leads to zero progression in society.

By the way, Adam Ruins Everything recently covered "The Suburbs".
https://youtu.be/e68CoE70Mk8
This clip covers white flight that followed WW2, but the entire episode is pretty good. If you're any fan of Urban Planning studies, this won't be anything new to you but still nice to hear the statistics and research that backs up these claims.
Marx Hardware & Paint Co is about a mile from you. Easy walk or bike ride.
robertn42 wrote:
Fri Oct 20, 2017 11:06 am

Marx Hardware & Paint Co is about a mile from you. Easy walk or bike ride.
Marx Hardware's hours are 9:00 - 4:30. But I am open to other options.
Folks: all of these "stories" are utter bulsh&t. Not because we may disagree with them, but because they are not real stories.

No person from USA today or any other city visited any of these places. Nobody at any 'news' source cares how livable any of them are. Every one of these "articles" are literally auto-generated based on publicly available data. They took a spreadsheet with a thousand rows (cities) and 25 columns of data, ran it through an algorithm with some completely pulled-out-of-their-ass weightings on each column, and literally let software generate the "article."

And don't forget to not pay any attention to these lists if St. Louis winds up on them either. It's nothing but clickbait cranked out in order to get ad revenue.
The USA Today uses the list from 24/7 Wall Street. 24/7 Wall Street published their methodology here:

http://247wallst.com/special-report/201 ... live-2/13/

A couple of things I noticed about their methodology:

1. They only look at towns with 65,000 people or more. That eliminates every town in St. Louis County.
2. They only take one best scoring town in any one county.
3. I searched on the words: walk, walkable, downtown, urban, bike, bicycle, and park. None were in the methodology document, except for this reference to parks:
"To engage in other pastimes — skiing, for example — residents likely have to leave city limits. Thus, we included in this index the number of zoos, nature parks, ski resorts, and golf courses in the counties surrounding the city."
4. Also, the word "metro" appeared twice: "we included the number of airports in the metro area in which the city is located. There are, for example, no airports in New York County, the primary county of New York City. However, at least three major airports exist outside county limits — and within the metro area — that service people who live in the city."