Score: Chicago 46, Detroit 50

25th January 2007

Score: Chicago 46, Detroit 50

posted in Chicago Stuff |

I wish I could tell you this was the score of a Bulls vs. Pistons basketball game. Unfortunately (as a Pistons fan), I can’t. Rather, it’s where my two hometowns (current and past, respectively) rank on the recent Fit Pregnancy list of Best Cities in America to have a baby. While I was sad that Detroit, which also has the distinction along with Chicago as one of the “fattest” cities in America, ranked last, I was actually angry to read that Chicago ranked so low. Apparently I chose to live in a city that is now known for the fourth lowest amount of OB-GYNs, 44 percent fewer public parks, and higher than average hospital costs. Woo-hoo! I’m so glad I just bought a house here. Seriously, why do they come out with these studies anyway? To make us feel worse about the choices we’ve already made? It’s not like I’m about to pick up and move to Omaha (although I hear it’s nice).

Anyway, I could probably sit here and argue about the criteria they used to come up with the rankings. But I won’t. Instead, I’m hoping that maybe next year they’ll include some ciriteria of what I looked for in a city when I decided to have a kid:

1) The proximity of my house to Starbucks (i.e. can I throw a baseball to it?) and how early it opens (5:30 a.m. is preferable).

2) The hours of the nearest Target so that I could easily swing by there after work and avoid the lines on a Saturday.

3) The cost of parking at my son’s pediatrician’s office. Free works.

4) The amount of time it would take me to get back to my house during rush hour after forgetting my office building I.D. (No, this doesn’t count for the “commuting” criteria they use).

5) The ability for my son to avoid the preschool enrollment rush because there are actually other viable options outside of spending an arm and a leg on private preschool in a big city.

You? Any criteria to add to the list? Where did your city rank and why is it better than mine?

Tags: Chicago, Fit Pregnancy, best cities to have a baby

Follow the RSS Feed, leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

1 On January 25th, 2007, Helen said:

Well, I’m there with you - I currently live in Metro Detroit. However, I was a bit surprised that my last home, Boston, was ranked #1. And that Boston’s crime rate is 20% lower than the average? Well, in the few years I lived there, my husband got his gym bag stolen at the Y, our car got vandalized, and then eventually stolen. I know they have great hospitals there, but I could never really imagine having/raising a child there. My hometown, Baltimore, MD (well a suburb of), ranked 30th and my future home Madison, WI (we are moving in June), was not on the list.

2 On February 5th, 2007, alimum said:

I think it really depends on where you live in Chicago. I mean, I find the whole “fewer parks” thing to be a bit odd, given that I have always lived within two blocks of a park (alright, “park” may be stretching it. But I have always lived within two blocks of a “playlot”). And for all the “lowest number of OB/GYNs” statistic, do you know ANYONE who has had difficulty finding an OB? However, it can be pricy and the whole preschool thing is as bad as New York (for the pricy private schools or the lottery of the public schools) and, no getting around it, you won’t be pushing your stroller around on a day like today.

The reason these studies are published is that I suspect there are people who are looking for a better place to live. Not necessarily people who have jobs and lives to which they are attached. And these sorts of things do make a difference–I went to school in Portland around the time it was ranked in the top ten and lots of people who were bored with life in LA ended up moving north–much to the chagrin of many locals. Not that I am imagining many people would choose Omaha.

I found you through your blog exchange with Stuntmother.