So Outside Magazine ranked Cincinnati #9 in it’s 2009 best places to live list.  I found that interesting, to say the least.  Not that I entirely disagree, because I do live here and like where I live (particularly East side – much better than North side).  But, I have lived here pretty much my entire life and I do know that the adventurous types might find the area a bit lacking.  Sure, as the article does say – we do have fairly easy access to the mountains and rivers of Kentucky and West Virginia, but they aren’t here.  And we do have some pretty nice urban parks in close proximity, but they certainly aren’t national park caliber.  If you compare the city to some of the mountain or beach towns, it simply doesn’t measure up when it comes to outdoor-oriented adventures.  I suppose the economic factors helped – this area truly does have a low cost of living and fairly diverse industries.  Although the local economy isn’t great, it does seem to be doing better than many of the other rust-belt cities.  All in all, the list is subjective (although several entrants always seem to be on those “great places to live” lists), and I can’t really argue with the choice based on the total picture.  Hey, at least I like it here!