Most/Least Toxic Cities

[BrianSac]

Another crazy Forbes List:

This list ranks cities-metros based on the least and most toxic. Variables included number of superfund sites, facilities releasing toxins, pounds of toxins released, and air quality.

The only surprise on the list is Portland Metro ranking in the MOST TOXIC category.

Another surprise is NY Metro ranking in the LEAST TOXIC catergory.


LEAST TOXIC CITIES-METROS

1 Las Vegas-Paradise, NV Metro Area
2 Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville, CA Metro Area
3 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Metro Area
4 Austin-Round Rock, TX Metro Area
5 Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA Metro Area
6 San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA Metro Area
7 Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC Metro Area
8 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Metro Area
9 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA Metro Area
10 Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Metro Area


MOST TOXIC CITIES-METROS

1 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA Metro Area
2 Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI Metro Area
3 Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX Metro Area
4 Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI Metro Area
5 Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD Metro Area
6 Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH Metro Area
7 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA Metro Area
8 Jacksonville, FL Metro Area
9 Baltimore-Towson, MD Metro Area
10 Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA Metro Area

See complete Forbes List: http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/02/tox...ies_chart.html

[SuburbanNation]

Once again St. Louis gets the short end of the stick because of the size of the core city.

I wonder if St. Louis isnt ranked so high because its worst offenders, oil refiners, steel mills, etc, are in its Illinois industrial suburbs (Sauget, Hartford, East St. Louis, etc) and not in St. Louis City.

[edmontonenthusiast]

Most of that doesn't even make sense.

So the dense, walkable, transit friendly cities like Atlanta, Chicago, Portland, Los Angeles, and Philly are toxic. Yet, sprawly cities that are car-centric like Phoenix, Inland Empire, and Vegas are untoxic, or the most untoxic.

[SuburbanNation]

Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast

Most of that doesn't even make sense.

So the dense, walkable, transit friendly cities like Atlanta, Chicago, Portland, Los Angeles, and Philly are toxic. Yet, sprawly cities that are car-centric like Phoenix, Inland Empire, and Vegas are untoxic, or the most untoxic.

Basically cities that boomed when we made lots of stuff or were already big (whether they are autocentric or not) vs cities that started to boom later vs New York and Seattle (don't get these two because I know both have core cities and industrial satellites that are as impacted as any). We are talking about a legacy. The methodology is also bad.

[10023]

The biggest factor here is age. Places like London and Paris would probably rate as pretty toxic as well, while places like Las Vegas and Phoenix don't. They may be the worst for the environment (on a per capita basis) today, but since they basically didn't exist before we had an EPA, they didn't have a lot of Industrial Age factories dumping raw sewage in a river.

It's odd to see New York on the least toxic list however. I wonder if that's just due to the sheer size of the metro area and the relatively nearby open spaces and abundant water?

[KevinFromTexas]

Besides smog maybe, what in Atlanta is toxic?

No surprise about Austin though. We pretty much have no factories here, and we don't have any major cities upstream from us to pollute our water.

[Ayreonaut]

It would be awesome to work at Forbes.

"So guys, what kind of list are we going to come up with today? Don't worry, you don't have to put any effort into it, just randomly pick a few cities out of a hat and make a list."

I'm not referring to this list, BTW, just the fact that there seems to be a new one every few days, it's like it's all they do.

BTW, isn't Portland considered one of, if not the greenest American city?

[SuburbanNation]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Besides smog maybe, what in Atlanta is toxic?

No surprise about Austin though. We pretty much have no factories here, and we don't have any major cities upstream from us to pollute our water.

Not defending the methodology, quite the opposite, but Atlanta boomed when we still made (some) stuff. There is a HUGE difference between how much stuff we made in 1990 and now. There are tons of mid to late(r) twentieth century industrial facilities in Atlanta.

Originally Posted by Ayreonaut

BTW, isn't Portland considered one of, if not the greenest American city?

Portland made a lot more stuff than Austin probably ever will...not to mention its raw materials processing. Portland was kind of a down on its heels industrial-esque/blue collar has been at one time. Many of those environmental impacts are still there.

[edmontonenthusiast]

Originally Posted by Ayreonaut

It would be awesome to work at Forbes.

"So guys, what kind of list are we going to come up with today? Don't worry, you don't have to put any effort into it, just randomly pick a few cities out of a hat and make a list."

I'm not referring to this list, BTW, just the fact that there seems to be a new one every few days, it's like it's all they do.

BTW, isn't Portland considered one of, if not the greenest American city?

Yeah...that one was perhaps the most peculiar of all the ones I had questioned.

It wasn't a big industrial city (which seems to be a factor) like Pittsburgh or Cleveland, has a lot of urban fabric & walkability, one of the best transit systems down in the States, has some of the lowest pollution levels (or was it one of the most declining?) in the US, has boundary laws not allowing people to develop much into nature, plus a pretty big "green" mentality (especially with recycling, despite the lack of public recycle bins).

[bobdreamz]

maybe they considered Atlanta toxic because Atlantic Station was a toxic site before? Anyways Las Vegas should lead the most toxic list with the amount of alcohol being peed into their water system!

[JMancuso]

Originally Posted by 10023

The biggest factor here is age. Places like London and Paris would probably rate as pretty toxic as well, while places like Las Vegas and Phoenix don't. They may be the worst for the environment (on a per capita basis) today, but since they basically didn't exist before we had an EPA, they didn't have a lot of Industrial Age factories dumping raw sewage in a river.

It's odd to see New York on the least toxic list however. I wonder if that's just due to the sheer size of the metro area and the relatively nearby open spaces and abundant water?

new york was never really heavily industrial like philly, chicago, cleveland, etc...

[SuburbanNation]

Originally Posted by JMancuso

new york was never really heavily industrial like philly, chicago, cleveland, etc...

I suppose that makes sense, it is the original white collar neck up capital of this country. Its also a large seaport and a (super) general economic engine, however, so i'm still kind of scratching my head. I guess I don't know the economic/industrial history of New York as well as say Chicago.

[llamaorama]

I'm surprised Houston wasn't the runaway #1

Anyways, AFAIK Portland does have industry past and present, on google earth I've found a few placemarked superfund sites like a former smelter on the Columbia river

[Antares41]

I don't get NYC's metro rating. Sure much of the heavy industry that existed in the city proper left decades ago, but, there are locations in New Jersey that are still very toxic. I'm thinking particularly about the Jersey side of the Hudson river and the Meadowlands. Still a lot of heavy metal contamination there specifically mercury and hexavalent chrome. I remember a particular residential develpoment was held up on the Jersey side of the Hudson due to this issue.

[rsbear]

Originally Posted by SuburbanNation

Portland made a lot more stuff than Austin probably ever will...not to mention its raw materials processing. Portland was kind of a down on its heels industrial-esque/blue collar has been at one time. Many of those environmental impacts are still there.

Portland was a huge ship building center during WWII. Lots of toxic crap went into the Willamette.

[SuburbanNation]

Originally Posted by Antares41

I don't get NYC's metro rating. Sure much of the heavy industry that existed in the city proper left decades ago, but, there are locations in New Jersey that are still very toxic. I'm thinking particularly about the Jersey side of the Hudson river and the Meadowlands. Still a lot of heavy metal contamination there specifically mercury and hexavalent chrome. I remember a particular residential develpoment was held up on the Jersey side of the Hudson due to this issue.

I didn't want to be the guy to say how dirty parts of New Jersey within the New York metro were and are. But they are.

[rsbear]

Originally Posted by BrianSac

LEAST TOXIC CITIES

1 Las Vegas-Paradise, NV Metro Area
2 Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville, CA Metro Area
3 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Metro Area
4 Austin-Round Rock, TX Metro Area
5 Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA Metro Area
6 San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA Metro Area
7 Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC Metro Area
8 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Metro Area
9 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA Metro Area
10 Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Metro Area


MOST TOXIC CITIES

1 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA Metro Area
2 Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI Metro Area
3 Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX Metro Area
4 Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI Metro Area
5 Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD Metro Area
6 Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH Metro Area
7 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA Metro Area
8 Jacksonville, FL Metro Area
9 Baltimore-Towson, MD Metro Area
10 Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA Metro Area

Love your choice of bolding. A little Portland envy, perhaps? Or Sacramento insecurity?

[Dan Denson]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Besides smog maybe, what in Atlanta is toxic?

No surprise about Austin though. We pretty much have no factories here, and we don't have any major cities upstream from us to pollute our water.

The high tech industries in Austin do release toxic compounds, but it's all relative, I guess.

[Dan Denson]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

I'm surprised Houston wasn't the runaway #1

Anyways, AFAIK Portland does have industry past and present, on google earth I've found a few placemarked superfund sites like a former smelter on the Columbia river

Thanks to strict EPA and state regulations and a strong environmental community in the Houston area, Houston's air pollutant levels have decreased drastically in the last decade, as have pollutants on EPA's list of compounds defined as toxics or hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). However, there is so much heavy industry (the heaviest concentration of refineries and chemical plants in the country along the ship channel) that the total amounts of emitted compounds "relative" to other cities is still high. Thus, the ranking near the top (if not the top) appears to be reasonable.

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by rsbear

Love your choice of bolding. A little Portland envy, perhaps? Or Sacramento insecurity?

You're such a pill! This is like the 3rd time you've haunted me with your strange comments. Read my post, I said it is surprising that Portland is on the list considering it is suppose to be a "green" city. Someone already made the same comment, as well.

I am well aware of the attributes and or negatives over one city over the next.

If you are trying bait me into an argument about Sacramento/Portland I'm not biting.