Minneapolis, and the fortunate state that hosts it, get named to all kinds of lists all the time. Hell, City Pages already put out something this morning that seemed like ironclad proof that we're the best state in the union.
In yet another list, Minneapolis has been named the sixth best city in the country. But this one's a little different. Compiling a list of lists that considered environmental factors, health, and technology, Minneapolis came in No. 6 in the "Best of the Best" rankings from Scientific American.
Science! See, we knew we were great, and now science has confirmed it.
Unfortunately, we came in just after New York City, home to those Gawker-sters who couldn't deign to rank our state higher than sixth in their little poll. The good news is, we're two spots ahead of our hated hipster/bikester rivals, Portland.
The "Best of the Best" list, which is part of Scientific American's "Cities" issue, was created through a review of all different kinds of lists. As SA explains, cities that made the list rank high on the good stuff -- like public transit and air quality -- and low on the bad stuff.
The No. 1 best of the best city in the whole country, scientifically proven, is San Francisco, proclaims Scientific American.
In the series of lists SA put out last week, Minneapolis showed up on a few lists: We're seventh for internet access, first for "most bikable" -- take that, Portland! -- but we can mostly thank our slim waistlines and healthy hearts for making the "Best of the Best."
For health, SA turned to the May rankings from the American Fitness Index, which gave the top spot for overall health to Minneapolis-St. Paul. (Hey, what's St. Paul doing in there?) Minneapolis also didn't make any of the unhealthy lists, like worst allergies, most fast-food restaurants, and highest sickness rate, which revealed that much of Miami should just be quarantined.
Behind San Francisco on the "Best of the Best" comes Washington, D.C., Seattle, Boston, and then New York City. In the No. 6 spot, Minneapolis beat out Denver, then Portland, L.A., and Chicago, which rounds out the list in tenth.
Scientific American tried to offer a caveat at the end of the list, to say it wasn't, well, scientific:
Not all of the lists on which these overall scores are based were created using conventional statistical or scientific methods, therefore their validity should be suspect. We have presented this information mainly for discussion.Nonsense. We're No. 6, and that finding will be upheld in any number of laboratory tests.
Now, while you're at it, Scientific American, how about putting together a "Worst of the Worst"? Are you taking nominations? Have you been to Newark?