Using density as a prominent negative factor is inherently biased, because such a large number of American cities have sub-urban density levels. This puts older cities — cities that are actually cities, instead of agglomerations of sprawl, which seem to pass for cities today — at a very distinct disadvantage. The evidence is right there in the Forbes list: other than Salt Lake, which one of the cities listed isn’t a very dense, older town? San Diego is probably less so than its peers, but its immigration rate has given it a very high level of density.

I would never tell a blogger not to cover a story that was interesting to them; but to do so without getting critical seems purposeless. I don’t mean to be confrontational. I’m upset because I think this is a great blog.

Yes, stress is really an individual thing, and to rank it according to city is odd. After all, as the Times’ article pointed out, I actually LIKE population density. If I had to move to a rural, sparsely populated area, THAT would stress me out.

Finally, whenever a “news” article emerges, I trust that the writers did their research, and I don’t always double-check every factoid they use. If the info IS wrong, I do apologize, but that should probably be taken up with Forbes itself.

Do you? Do you really? Explain to me how that works, that formula, because it sounds like a load of horse manure to me. This was one of the shoddiest city ranking methodologies I’ve seen in a long time, and the ludicrous negative density factor was a major factor in that. But one of the most frustrating things has been watching blogs that I normally enjoy take Forbes’ list and run with it unquestioningly. And this is yet another disappointment.

And just to nitpick, because seeing good blogs run bad stories makes me cranky: Chicago is the third most densely populated city, after NY and San Francisco.