In the news

Some love for the Twin Cities!

Today the American College of Sports Medicine released its annual rankings for the "healthiest/fittest" urban areas, and the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area topped the list for the second year in a row! I read about it on Runner's World and then clicked through to the organization's news release to see the full list. (Also a must-read over at Runner's World today: the story of a man who is a professional dog runner. But I digress.)

Anyway, the top five are the Twin Cities, D.C., Boston, San Francisco and Hartford. (I have to say I said "Hartford?" out loud, even though I loved my experience running the Hartford Marathon a few years back when I was out east for work.)  Check out the list.  Any surprises?  I'm no urban geographer, but I was surprised to see the Portland-Seattle-Denver trio as "low" as they were (#7-9), since they are the three urban areas that come perhaps the closest to feeling like home to me in terms of the pedestrian- and cycling-friendly infrastructure that makes up a key part of the list's methodology.

I grew up in the Twin Cities. Part of why I love showing visitors around is because I undoubtedly take for granted some of the features that landed my home on top of the list: the extensive trail network, the vast urban park system, the increasing range of sustainable transportation options like bike highways and the light rail.  I like to see the Twin Cities through a visitor's eyes.  The love for my community was a timely reminder to appreciate it - and all of the work that people here have invested in encouraging health.

So, if you're in the Twin Cities, do you agree with the top ranking?  If you live somewhere else, do you think the assessment for your city is spot-on or way off-base?  What improvements have you seen in your community - and tell me: what changes do you still dream about?