World's Most Liveable Cities

[Michael]

http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/20110903_BLP503.jpg
Melbourne, Australia

ALONG with death and taxes, the one thing that used to be taken for granted in life was Vancouver’s pre-eminence in the Economist Intelligence Unit’s liveability ranking. Well not any more. After almost a decade as—officially—the best place to live, the Canadian city has been consigned to third spot in August's survey, with Melbourne (pictured) rising to first, ahead of Vienna.

The ranking scores 140 cities from 0-100 on 30 factors spread across five areas: stability, health care, culture and environment, education, and infrastructure. These numbers are then weighted and combined to produce an overall figure. In the case of the top cities, these figures are very high and very close together: Vancouver, which can blame its fall from grace on raised congestion, is just 0.2 percentage points behind Melbourne. And yet, given that the numbers were calculated before the riots that afflicted Vancouver in June, its total is likely to head downward in subsequent iterations.

Source (http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2011/08/liveability-ranking)

I honestly can't imagine too much difference amongst the top ten places. Apparently Vancouver lost the top spot due to increasing traffic congestion. :shrug:

Anyway, here's the most interesting part...

Top ten cities: 1. Melbourne 97.5 2. Vienna 97.4 3. Vancouver 97.3 4. Toronto 97.2 5. Calgary 96.6 6. Sydney 96.1 7. Helsinki 96 8. Perth 95.9 9. Adelaide 95.9 10. Auckland 95.7

Notice any patterns here? Hint: take away Vienna and Helsinki and what are you left with? 8 of the top 10 cities are in either Australia or Canada.

[Donkey]

Does it have the whole list anywhere? I wonder where the first US city lands. I bet it's one with good subway system. :p

[Michael]

Does it have the whole list anywhere? I wonder where the first US city lands. I bet it's one with good subway system. :p

The article does mention that NYC is roughly tied with London in the mid-50's zone. Wouldn't surprise me at all if NYC is the highest ranked US city (I certainly consider NYC to be the ONLY city in the USA I'd be willing to live in).

[Donkey]

The article does mention that NYC is roughly tied with London in the mid-50's zone. Wouldn't surprise me at all if NYC is the highest ranked US city (I certainly consider NYC to be the ONLY city in the USA I'd be willing to live in).

Yes, but you are very metropolitan. :p

[Americano]

The article does mention that NYC is roughly tied with London in the mid-50's zone. Wouldn't surprise me at all if NYC is the highest ranked US city (I certainly consider NYC to be the ONLY city in the USA I'd be willing to live in).

For a cosmopolitan lifestyle, yes. Of the remainder I'd pick San Francisco as second with the rest, regardless of size, being hick burgs now missing their factories and agriculture.

[Americano]

Notice any patterns here? Hint: take away Vienna and Helsinki and what are you left with? 8 of the top 10 cities are in either Australia or Canada.

Don't tell New Zealand.

[Non Sequitur]

Most livable for who? White middle class?

[Donkey]

Most livable for who? White middle class?

Most livable for people who would be reading the Economist, I suspect. :sneaky:

[dilettante]

I'm not sure I find "most liveable" a particularly inspiring title. It seems to me that if liveability (the ability to live) is not a given in your locale, it's time to move. :)

Really, though, I'd prefer not to live in a major city at all.

[Michael]

Yes, but you are very metropolitan. :p

Yes, that's very true. I consider any city less than a million to be a 'hick town' and even then, a mere million is a pretty quiet city (Vancouver for example is a very boring place as far as cities go).

I suppose that comes from living in the heart of downtown for so many years - it spoils one with the atmosphere and all the ammenities.

I wouldn't mind living in London either, but that's the whole of my list - Toronto, London and NYC. :D

[Michael]

I'm not sure I find "most liveable" a particularly inspiring title. It seems to me that if liveability (the ability to live) is not a given in your locale, it's time to move. :)

Really, though, I'd prefer not to live in a major city at all.

The Economist uses a complex algorithm that is based on hundreds of factors including traffic, housing prices, quality of infrastructure, quality of entertainment available, crime rates, employment opportunities, quality of schools, pollution levels, etc.

As some observers have noted, "weather" clearly isn't one of the factors since Vancouver and Calgary (for example) have lousy weather. I can't imagine that Helsinki is a weather paradise either.

I suspect that the 'crime rate' factor is what kills most US cities on the list since US crime rates are usually many times higher than most other non-US cities (1st world cities).

[Donkey]

Yes, that's very true. I consider any city less than a million to be a 'hick town' and even then, a mere million is a pretty quiet city (Vancouver for example is a very boring place as far as cities go).

I suppose that comes from living in the heart of downtown for so many years - it spoils one with the atmosphere and all the ammenities.

I wouldn't mind living in London either, but that's the whole of my list - Toronto, London and NYC. :DMexico City has like 20 million people. ;)

[Michael]

Mexico City has like 20 million people. ;)

And it ranks up there with Detroit for crime rates. No thank you.

There are literally dozens of mega-cities in the 3rd world with huge populations, but they are mostly shitholes.

[Donkey]

And it ranks up there with Detroit for crime rates. No thank you.

There are literally dozens of mega-cities in the 3rd world with huge populations, but they are mostly shitholes.

I hated Mexico City. I think the biggest city that I've navigated on my own is Chicago (or is DC bigger? That doesn't count). I liked it, but it doesn't have the grunge that I love about Cleveland.

[Michael]

I hated Mexico City. I think the biggest city that I've navigated on my own is Chicago (or is DC bigger? That doesn't count). I liked it, but it doesn't have the grunge that I love about Cleveland.

Chicago doesn't have the grunge of Cleveland? Really? I find Chicago is a nice city, but it does have rather large sections that are very run-down and trashy.

That being said, Cleveland does have a particular reputation for being the worst (or ugliest) city in the USA.

[Donkey]

Depends on what you define as ugly... If you don't like big old bridges and a bit of rust and dirt, and old brick buildings, then yeah...

http://urbanohio.com/thepope/BAH/east%20bank/east%20bank0002.jpg

Cleveland ain't for you.

[Michael]

Depends on what you define as ugly... If you don't like big old bridges and a bit of rust and dirt, and old brick buildings, then yeah...
...

Cleveland ain't for you.
;) I was just trolling you with the Cleveland-bashing. I've never been there so I haven't a clue about the place. I was just repeating the common US stereotype about Cleveland. It has been a favorite whipping boy of comedians for generations. :shrug:

Anyway, that's a fine looking streetscape - and that's exactly what a 'modern' city often actually looks like. I think one major difference between an 'ugly' city and a 'great' city is often the sheer number of these types of 'nice' looking streets as opposed to the number 'ugly' streets. Even famously beautiful cities still have some ugly looking street-scapes, no doubt about that - it is all about the ratio of 'pretty' to 'ugly' streetscapes I guess. Some cities have postcard quality skylines and can be ugly cities, or other cities can have boring skylines yet be very beautiful places. It is at the street level that the city must be seen to be appreciated.

But cities are always more than just the architecture though. Cities are the engines of modern economies and always have been. Thus the 'greatest' cities are often those that are the most economically vibrant - hence NYC's fame and glory (and London, Tokyo and Hong Kong too). No doubt Shanghai will rise up on this scale as China becomes an increasingly larger part of the world economy.

This is very different than the way one might describe Paris or Rome as one of the world's greatest cities - which are more presently famous for history, architecture, arts and culture. Truly great cities are those like London and NYC that combine both aspects: a super-economic engine + architectural and strong cultural landmarks.

On top of all this, it then comes down to the character (and variety) of the neighborhoods - particularly if one is looking at the "liveability" of a city. It is the reason I'd pick to live in London over NYC. It seems like London has more and interesting variety than NYC in the types of neighborhoods. NYC is too 'exclusive' making some neighborhoods completely inaccessible (for living if you are not a millionaire). London seems more diverse (like Toronto) with mega-rich living side-by-side with middle class, and middle-class living side by side with working class in the same neighborhoods (all neighborhoods seem to contain a mix of rich and poor).

So yes, living in (and growing up) in a city like Toronto makes me a bit of city-snob type. I can't help it. For a city to be 'great' in my mind, it has to be 'better' than Toronto, because that's the place I know best. :shrug:

Oddly enough, London, NYC and Vancouver are the three other cities that I know the best after Toronto (having been to all of the above, many times over many years - and London is just plain fascenating history to study).

[Donkey]

;) I was just trolling you with the Cleveland-bashing. I've never been there so I haven't a clue about the place. I was just repeating the common US stereotype about Cleveland. It has been a favorite whipping boy of comedians for generations. :shrug:

No doubt. Cleveland is an easy target, and it is often a target for Clevelanders themselves. We have such a negative attitude toward our own city, but there is so much awesome stuff going on here.

I think it is important to make a distinction, though, between loving a place and thinking that it is awesome. I love Cleveland, but that doesn't mean that the Cleveland schools aren't abysmal. It doesn't mean that there isn't high crime. It doesn't mean that there isn't severe economic depression. It doesn't mean that it's perfect, just that I love it.

And if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

[NickKIELCEPoland]

Bergen, in Norway (population 240,000) is widely regarded by Bergenites as the most beautiful city in the world.

I grew up there, and I think it might be true.