Economist "Most/Least Livable" Cities 2014

[Austinlee]

This thread turned into Ferguson, MO very quickly.

[WhipperSnapper]

LMAO ... impatient care ... where they will crack your chest at whim so they can charge you days of recovery time. No offense but, many everyday procedures in the US are needlessly evasive for this day and age because that's where the profit is. Likewise, Americans do also travel all around the world to have things done. You're fooling yourself if you think the door only opens one way.

I can go to any doctor I want so I don't get your point. Also, I know a person with the best healthcare insurance available in the US that developed a chronic condition and , after a few years, his platinum healtcare suddenly was no more. I doubt this was once in a blue moon situation too.

Originally Posted by Crawford

No, best healthcare in the world if you have health insurance, which 90% of people have. It has nothing to do with being "rich", if you are a typical working class person in NYC you have gold-plated healthcare.

My wife, who does not have a high salary, and works in a unionized city govt. position pays 0 towards healthcare, and can basically select any doctor in the metropolitan area for any of her healthcare needs. Basically every city and state employee has the same healthcare as her plan. She can get the best Park Avenue physicians, the top grads of Harvard, Columbia, Stanford, etc., all she needs to do is make an appointment.

Private empolyers, unless you work at Walmart or something, generally ask you to pay a couple hundred dollars a month, and then, again, you can select any doctor in the metro area, and pay minimal costs ($10 or $20 per visit). I can select the same physicans and services as my wife, I just have to pay a nominal amount.

The people cleaning the toilets in my office building can do the exact same thing. They're unionized and actually have cheaper healthcare than me (but not completely free like that of my wife). They can visit Park Ave. doctors every week for the rest of their lives, if they so choose, and pay almost nothing.

This is the "normal" healthcare in the U.S. It's horribly inefficient, but the quality is easily the best in the world. The best doctors, hosptials, and inpatient care, no question. Preventive care, no way, but inpatient, unparalleled. Costs are born by employers, for the most part. The big problem in U.S. healthcare is with the crushing employer costs, actually. Employee costs are not higher than other nations.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

L

I can go to any doctor I want so I don't get your point.

Well I don't know where you live, but I was speaking for the U.S., not any other nation. I never claimed the U.S. was unique in being able to visit any specialist.

Are you in Canada? I don't think Canadians have full medical coverage. You don't have to visit a primary care physician; you can just sign up with any specialist regardless? And I know Dental and Vision generally aren't covered in Canada.

[NorthernDancer]

Try paying just a "nominal amount" in the USA if you need something like brain or quadruple bypass surgery. Even if you have insurance, you'll be stuck paying 1000s in "co-payments" and "deductibles".

[destroycreate]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Exactly, no freedom, pleasure or culture in San Francisco.

LOL right!?



Los Angeles, Miami, Boston, NYC, Chicago, etc...the list goes on. All bland and boring without culture, all where freedom is prohibited.

The elitism of so many Europeans never ceases to amaze me. And by the way, I used to be one of those types that wrote off America as some cultureless, fat paradise. Now there's no place I'd rather be.

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Obviously there are exciting European cities and boring ones, and the same goes for the U.S., or any country.

None of which are anywhere near this list, let alone on it.

The point is in these types of stupid polls, they always choose the blandest, most boring cities, such as Helsinki, Calgary, etc. and ignore the places people actually want to visit or live in, such as Paris, Venice, etc.

Helsinki and Calgary are not boring, you probably have never been there so how would you even know? Paris is on the list! And noone wants to live in Venice, the locals are abandoning it. People DO want to live in Melbourne, Vienna, Vancouver, Toronto, Adelaide, Calgary, Sydney, Helsinki, Perth, Auckland, Zurich, Geneva, Osaka, Hamburg, Stockholm, Montreal, Frankfurt, Tokyo, Brisbane, Amsterdam, Brussels, Copenhagen, Berlin, Munich, Oslo, etc these are all growing cities with solid economies and an abundance of culture. That's why they top the list!

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Neither Canada nor the US seem to do well on these comparisons.

Be sure to also notice the (literal) bottom line...

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by vanatox

You seem to have seen the full list. Is it possible for you to post it here? I was curious to see it but can't find it anywhere.

Yeah you can't find it anywhere, the Economist makes you pay for it (something in the order of $350!)

This is the best I could do:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%2...bility_Ranking

Plus if you read the summary it is stated that of 140 cities surveyed, only 20 had a change in position compared to last year. You can find (parts of) the list from previous years so that's how I know certain other cities are in the top 30 for instance (but not their exact position).

http://www.eiu.com/public/thankyou_d...iveability2014

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by destroycreate

LOL right!?



Los Angeles, Miami, Boston, NYC, Chicago, etc...the list goes on. All bland and boring without culture, all where freedom is prohibited.

The elitism of so many Europeans never ceases to amaze me. And by the way, I used to be one of those types that wrote off America as some cultureless, fat paradise. Now there's no place I'd rather be.

Maybe you need to take a reading comprehension class together with Crawford, because it is him who is calling Calgary, Helsinki, Adelaide and Perth boring and bland. Noone in this thread called LA, Miami, Boston, NYC or Chicago that.
And I believe ukw stated that he is from the Northeastern USA...

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by destroycreate

LOL right!?



Los Angeles, Miami, Boston, NYC, Chicago, etc...the list goes on. All bland and boring without culture, all where freedom is prohibited.

The elitism of so many Europeans never ceases to amaze me. And by the way, I used to be one of those types that wrote off America as some cultureless, fat paradise. Now there's no place I'd rather be.

Just checking. When youse say America, you mean to say the "United States of America", or the whole shebang, like the continent so to speak?

[NorthernDancer]

Originally Posted by SHiRO

Helsinki and Calgary are not boring, you probably have never been there so how would you even know?

I haven't been to Helsinki yet, so I can't speak to it. However, anyone who would call Calgary boring is either stupid, ignorant, or probably both.

[mello]

Having lived most of my life in San Diego and recently traveled to Sydney and extensively explored its inner neighborhoods and beach areas (Did not go to Western Suburbs) I was very impressed with Sydney and can say it can hold its own with Los Angeles a much larger metro area in many respects. Public transit wasn't great but its urban form was very impressive for a metro area of its size.

I have followed Melbourne for years, never visited, but from photo threads and what I have read it looks to be just as nice if not nicer than Sydney (built environment not natural aspects like harbor/beaches/hills). Both of these cities have nice weather and more rain than Southern California and seem to be much greener.

The wealth disparity is very palpable here in Southern CA and the economic prospects for those who aren't highly skilled in specific degrees are quite slim. I can see why the Oz cities score very high on livability and US cities could definitely learn a lot from them. Look at the transformation of the inner 10 square miles of Melbourne in the last 15 years and tell me it isn't remarkable for a metro area of that size.

[losername]

Originally Posted by Crawford

If you surveyed people, regardless of background, yes, I am confident they would overwhelmingly choose San Diego's perfect weather, mountains, ocean, desert, over a Calgary or Adelaide.


Well that's kind of the point, no? Calgary (to take an example) is growing because of the robust resource extraction economy, not because of any inherent desirability.

North Dakota or the Australian Outback aren't more desirable than Malibu or Nice just because those places currently attract a lot of people desiring a paycheck. People need to eat. Detroit was the fastest growing American city for decades, doesn't mean people all thought Detroit was some super-desirable city. Saudi Arabia and Kazakhstan aren't going top too many peoples dream location list just because energy prices are high.

Crawford, look again at your post that I was responding to. You mentioned that San Diego would be more livable than Calgary or Adelaide because of plentiful jobs as one of YOUR criteria. This is why i responed with the job situation in Calgary, jeez you are foolish.

And I don't think you will find a single person on the planet (unless they are blind) that would find the mountains surrounding the San Diego, more beautiful than the Canadian Rockies immediately west of Calgary (45min drive from western edge of the city). I've been to San Diego countless times ( I lived in LA for 5 years) and I wouldn't even say that the mountains (hills) in SD are as nice as LA's. Calgary also has the Badlands (45min east) of the city, largest dinosaurs graveyard yet to be found in the world. The beauty of this place is on par with the desert areas around SD.

I personally could live in either city SD or Calgary and be just as happy in either; just as I was living in Vancouver (4yrs), Los Angeles(5yrs), NYC(10yrs), and now Toronto(6yrs).

Like I said - live a little, travel more, open your mind and stop trying to make people believe your uniformed opinions as though they are truth. You most likely have the least experience or intimate knowledge of very few cities than most on this forum(this is an educated guest based on your completey nonsensical remarks about places you obiviously haven't even been to let alone lived in).

[Shawn]

I am not sold on the exact rankings, but the general trend of Canadian, Australian, and Northern European cities topping American cities in terms of livability seems reasonable to me.

In general, which collection of cities has less crime, especially violent crime?

In general, which collection of cities has better public transit?

In general, which collection of cities has a lower wealth disparity relative to the low end?

In general, which collection of cities receives more public works funding?

Yeah, excitement and "sports" will be subjective. So will weather. But the stuff I listed above falls far more on the quantifiable, objective side of the scale - and most US cities fall short of their Canadian, Australian, and Northern European counterparts in these aspects. It's not a controversial or unpatriotic observation to make.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by mello

Having lived most of my life in San Diego and recently traveled to Sydney and extensively explored its inner neighborhoods and beach areas (Did not go to Western Suburbs) I was very impressed with Sydney and can say it can hold its own with Los Angeles a much larger metro area in many respects. Public transit wasn't great but its urban form was very impressive for a metro area of its size.

I have followed Melbourne for years, never visited, but from photo threads and what I have read it looks to be just as nice if not nicer than Sydney (built environment not natural aspects like harbor/beaches/hills). Both of these cities have nice weather and more rain than Southern California and seem to be much greener.

The wealth disparity is very palpable here in Southern CA and the economic prospects for those who aren't highly skilled in specific degrees are quite slim. I can see why the Oz cities score very high on livability and US cities could definitely learn a lot from them. Look at the transformation of the inner 10 square miles of Melbourne in the last 15 years and tell me it isn't remarkable for a metro area of that size.

I spent 10 days in Sydney once. It's miles ahead of pretty much any US city in liveability.

[Wooster]

Maybe we should realize that "boring" in a sense is good in terms of basic quality of life. In that low violet crime and stability is "boring" and copious amounts of gun violence is really "exciting". Functioning multiculturalism like in Canadian cities is "boring", while racial strife is "exciting". Story about a guy getting medical treatment, working out well and he not having to pay anything is "boring", while stories of HMOs denying some guy with a chronic illness coverage due to a loophole and profit motive is not as boring.

Re healthcare and Crawford's comments - the measure of any society should be how it treats its most vulnerable citizens - we all know that for those on the lower end, the US healthcare (especially insurance system) does not protect them particularly well. You can be any citizen in Canada - if you have a medical situation, there is NEVER the choice of "do I go to get treatment and potentially go broke, or do I (dangerously) go untreated?" That is a real choice millions of Americans have to make. Until that is truly fixed, despite some of the greatest physicians and facilities in the world, the US cannot claim to have anywhere close to a great healthcare system.

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by Shawn

I am not sold on the exact rankings, but the general trend of Canadian, Australian, and Northern European cities topping American cities in terms of livability seems reasonable to me.

In general, which collection of cities has less crime, especially violent crime?

In general, which collection of cities has better public transit?

In general, which collection of cities has a lower wealth disparity relative to the low end?

In general, which collection of cities receives more public works funding?

Yeah, excitement and "sports" will be subjective. So will weather. But the stuff I listed above falls far more on the quantifiable, objective side of the scale - and most US cities fall short of their Canadian, Australian, and Northern European counterparts in these aspects. It's not a controversial or unpatriotic observation to make.

Why this all may be valid, places like Boston, SF and Seattle (and maybe DC and Chicago) nonetheless each deserve to rank in the top 20 on these types of lists. Education, recreation, job opportunities, cost of living (in some cases), crime (or at least prevalence of crime across the vast majority) and public transit, and cultural opportunities are all at par or in some metrics above the "top 10" - particularly the Australian and Canadian cities. Europe, I can see the case for them topping the list though. Where are the German cities and Barcelona?

As for Pittsburgh - no city, no matter how strong in certain areas, with regions like the Hill District - abandonment in its core - can figure on these types of lists. Sorry - same applies for most English cities.

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by mello

The wealth disparity is very palpable here in Southern CA and the economic prospects for those who aren't highly skilled in specific degrees are quite slim. I can see why the Oz cities score very high on livability and US cities could definitely learn a lot from them. Look at the transformation of the inner 10 square miles of Melbourne in the last 15 years and tell me it isn't remarkable for a metro area of that size.

That's one way to look at it. I personally am astounded at LA's ability to absorb unskilled and penniless Central American and Mexican immigrants and propel them into something resembling the middle class.

[ukw]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Exactly, no freedom, pleasure or culture in San Francisco.

You've cherry-picked a small liberal bastion in the US, but even SF is not that great.

SF residents feel their city is a bit too provincial. Here are some relevant threads on this

http://www.city-data.com/forum/san-f...le-say-sf.html
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/i...7182440AADR7mE

Many people living in SF actually don't travel anywhere and are unaware of the surrounding world, nor are they interested in it.

In other words, SF is not very cosmopolitan, but it's probably better than most other American cities, as far as crime/boredom goes. But yes, even in SF, nightlife shuts down promptly at 1:30-2:00, which never ceases to amaze European visitors...

[Private Dick]

Yeah... San Francisco has always been known for being populated by nothing but ignorant hicks.