Economist "Most/Least Livable" Cities 2014

[Private Dick]

Melbourne again tops Economist's world most liveable cities index

Australian cities rank highly in annual index with Adelaide, Perth and Sydney also in top 10, but Victorian capital dominates for fourth year running

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...e-cities-index

Australian cities have once again been named among the world’s most liveable, with Melbourne topping the international index produced by the Economist Intelligence Unit for the fourth consecutive year.

The Victorian capital beat 139 other cities to top the list, while Adelaide (5th), Sydney (7th) and Perth (9th) also made the top 10, which is identical to last year’s.

Melbourne achieved perfect scores of 100 in the healthcare, education and infrastructure categories, as well as in the sub-category of sport. It also performed well in the other criteria of stability, and culture and environment.

At the other end of the table, many of the lowest scores are in areas of conflict. As the report explains, this is partly due to low scores for stability, but also because factors defining stability have an adverse effect on other scores: “Conflict will not just cause disruption in its own right, it will also damage infrastructure, overburden hospitals, and undermine the availability of goods, services and recreational activities.”

The world’s top 10 cities for liveability

1. Melbourne, Australia

2. Vienna, Austria

3. Vancouver, Canada

4. Toronto, Canada

=5. Adelaide, Australia

=5. Calgary, Canada

7. Sydney, Australia

8. Helsinki, Finland

9. Perth, Australia

10. Auckland, New Zealand

The world’s bottom 10 cities for liveability

131. Abidjan, Ivory Coast

132. Tripoli, Libya

133. Douala, Cameroon

134. Harare, Zimbabwe

135. Algiers, Algeria

136. Karachi, Pakistan

137. Lagos, Nigeria

138. Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea

139. Dhaka, Bangladesh

140. Damascus, Syria

[Razor]

Way to go Oz...Starting to look like an Olympic swimming race here..Canada did ok on this list as well.

[bobdreamz]

Geez? can this all white website not have a "agenda"? Save for Finland & Austria (also 'White") all are part of the "British Common wealth"!

Notice how some of the "bottom" cities were once part of the "British Empire" as well!

[10023]

To be fair, most of the world has been ruled by the British at one point or another.

[Kenmore]

you take a pool of cities over a certain size, cherry pick a few common indicators (gini, gdp growth, %in poverty, life expectancy/infant mortality,e tc) and a list pops out like this pretty easy.

[dc_denizen]

Proper Title: Cities the English Like.

[Evergrey]

Agreed with the consensus that this list is very biased, cherrypicked, racist, rigged, etc.

I'd much rather live in Harare than Vienna.

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by bobdreamz

Geez? can this all white website not have a "agenda"? Save for Finland & Austria (also 'White") all are part of the "British Common wealth"!

Notice how some of the "bottom" cities were once part of the "British Empire" as well!

Whoa, careful with that inflammatory race-baiting!

The last few comments that suggested the "whiteness" of this list got deleted... which is an action that is really beyond the pale

[dc_denizen]

Why would Portland, OR or Seattle, WA not outrank Perth or Adelaide?

Is ready access to large coal and natural gas deposits a significant portion of the weighting?

[R@ptor]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Why would Portland, OR or Seattle, WA not outrank Perth or Adelaide?

Is ready access to large coal and natural gas deposits a significant portion of the weighting?

Much larger wealth gap, higher crime rates, limited access to health care for many people, unfavourable working conditions (more working hours, less vacation time),.....

[LouisVanDerWright]

Honestly, if you were to ask me, I wouldn't be surprised at all if you said the world's most "livable" cities were almost all "white". Besides the obvious economic history, cities that are located in horrendously hot and humid climates are mostly occupied by people with darker skin tones because that's why those people have darker skin. A perfect example of correlation not being causation. Cities with darker skinned residents aren't less livable because of the color of the residents skin. Their resident's skin is darker because the places in which their ancestors lived have harsher, more extreme, climates which, in turn, make cities near the equator less livable.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by R@ptor

Much larger wealth gap, higher crime rates, limited access to health care for many people, unfavourable working conditions (more working hours, less vacation time),.....

You may be right if that's the methodology, but the metric is stupid. It's pretty much designed to favor the most boring cities in the Anglosphere and a few Northern European countries.

Wealth gap, especially, should not be included.There is nothing inherently "better" about having a smaller wealth gap. % poverty or something would be a good metric, because a place can have a huge wealth gap but a well-off poor cohort, or a small wealth gap and a struggling poor cohort.

Median income would be even better, but they will never use that, because they want to promote the Adelaides of the world over places people actually want to live (the San Diegos of the world).

[10023]

Originally Posted by R@ptor

Much larger wealth gap, higher crime rates, limited access to health care for many people, unfavourable working conditions (more working hours, less vacation time),.....

Which all raises the question - liveable for whom?

London for instance is very liveable for many people, but I imagine it would be pretty miserable on the UK median income. That's probably why narrow wealth gaps are favored.

Originally Posted by Evergrey

Agreed with the consensus that this list is very biased, cherrypicked, racist, rigged, etc.

I'd much rather live in Harare than Vienna.

Racist? Really?

European countries and their former colonies are the most developed. African countries are the least. These are facts, not biases.

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by R@ptor

Much larger wealth gap, higher crime rates, limited access to health care for many people, unfavourable working conditions (more working hours, less vacation time),.....

But mitigated somewhat by superior job and educational opportunities, surely, and a much more diversified (non-resource based) economy. It all depends on how much you weight different factors.

[MonkeyRonin]

The fact that the developed nations of Europe, North America, and Australia have a high quality of life than impoverished, often war-torn countries in Africa and the Middle East is racist?

Besides, what the hell is a "white city"? Just about all of the cities at the top of the list are quite multicultural (probably having something to do with the fact that these are desirable places to live). Stop inserting American racial politics where they don't belong.

Originally Posted by Evergrey

I'd much rather live in Harare than Vienna.

So edgy!

[Private Dick]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Why would Portland, OR or Seattle, WA not outrank Perth or Adelaide?

Portland and Seattle are too diverse.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Private Dick

Portland and Seattle are too diverse.

Portland and too diverse in the same sentence? Haven't heard that one before.

[ukw]

over places people actually want to live (the San Diegos of the world).

Speak for yourself. I don't want to live in San Diego - it's almost like a "military state" with conservative right-wing politics, rude and pissed-off people, and a lack of community.

I'd much rather live in a European or Australian city than any American one.

[dc_denizen]

^ admit it, were you one of the authors of the report?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by ukw

Speak for yourself. I don't want to live in San Diego - it's almost like a "military state" with conservative right-wing politics, rude and pissed-off people, and a lack of community.

I'd much rather live in a European or Australian city than any American one.

I'm not speaking for you or for me, obviously our personal preferences aren't relevant. And you would really, honestly rather live in Moldova than in the U.S.? I'm guessing no.

My point is that people generally want to live somewhere like San Diego and not Calgary or Adelaide or wherever. If you personally think California is a "military state" with "conservative right wing politics" and all the rest, then I'd say your views are far from the norm.

People generally want pretty places, sunny places or economically/culturally dynamic places as their ideal towns. And, if they're working age, they want good jobs. These surveys are always ranking Helsinki or Canberra or whatever boring Anglosphere/Nordic cities over places where people actually want to live (places like Paris, or Venice, or Barcelona).