Economist "Most/Least Livable" Cities 2014

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

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.

No the US does not "deserve" to have 5 cities in the top 20 just because. I've noticed similar entitlement from you in the past but that's not how it works. There's a certain methodology to this and if US cities don't rank, they don't rank! Doesn't make them bad cities, just means that by this way of measuring the rest does even better even if ever so slightly.

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?

The Economist doesn't factor in cost of living. If you would have actually read their criteria you would have known that. And the German cities and Barcelona (as I already wrote) are all in the top 30. And you certainly must be vastly unfamiliar with the top cities if you think they are overrated vis a vis US cities on education, recreation, jobs, crime, public transportation and culture.

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.

English cities for the most part don't have abandonment in their cores, on the contrary, they have experienced and are still experiencing a massive urban revival. London and Manchester are the only two included in this index and they rank just above most US cities (but below Pittsburgh and Honolulu I think). Those and the Southern European cities are all still well in the top 50 (or top 40 even) still scoring around 90/100, including the US cities.

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

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.

Not much different from the top cities then.

[dc_denizen]

Yes because Vancouver absorbing Chinese millionaires is the same as LA absorbing millions of impoverished Central Americans and Mexicans....

[SHiRO]

Yeah because 52% of the population of The City of Vancouver are Chinese millionaires...

Trolling is really in the blood with you isn't it? Can't help yourself...

[599GTO]

Originally Posted by ukw

No no, I've traveled a great deal both in the US and abroad. I live in the Northeast but have been to both the South and the West of the US.

What concerns me is that a lot of other American posters haven't really traveled overseas particularly to the cities they describe as "boring." If you believe that any European city is "more boring" than the average American one, you need to have your head examined. It's precisely the opposite. The amount of entertainment, culture, pleasure, and freedom in Euro cities is way higher than anywhere in America.

I have been to most major cities in Western Europe, have been to Europe six times this year, have spent months there at a time at our home in France, old place in Lugano and from experiences, every single European city on that list is boring. To be honest, every city in that top 10 list is absolutely uninhabitable to me personally, but I understand it's their criteria so I personally pay no attention to or dispute these lists as many would find the fact that I could really only keep the obvious very small handful of famous, unequal, glamorous cities as my home base a bit silly (I'm apparently pretentious).

No one, other than the hillbillies living in the countryside of these cities, goes into any of these places for "excitement". Any well-travelled person would agree that these places suck when it comes to buzz and excitement. Why isn't Zurich in the top 10? It happens to be my favorite boring city and I would rather be bored-to-death in Zurich than Vienna as Zurich's location is more central to major cultural and entertainment centers. Helsinki? Just kill me. I don't care about Australia or Canada and tend to ignore them.

[Perklol]

Not sure...

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by 599GTO

I have been to most major cities in Western Europe, have been to Europe six times this year, have spent months there at a time at our home in France, old place in Lugano and from experiences, every single European city on that list is boring. To be honest, every city in that top 10 list is absolutely uninhabitable to me personally, but I understand it's their criteria so I personally pay no attention to or dispute these lists as many would find the fact that I could really only keep the obvious very small handful of famous, unequal, glamorous cities as my home base a bit silly (I'm apparently pretentious).

No one, other than the hillbillies living in the countryside of these cities, goes into any of these places for "excitement". Any well-travelled person would agree that these places suck when it comes to buzz and excitement. Why isn't Zurich in the top 10? It happens to be my favorite boring city and I would rather be bored-to-death in Zurich than Vienna as Zurich's location is more central to major cultural and entertainment centers. Helsinki? Just kill me. I don't care about Australia or Canada and tend to ignore them.

Maybe it's you who is the problem if you find Melbourne, Sydney, Toronto and Vienna boring. Frankly, I don't know what you are even doing on this forum, let alone the City Discussion forum if you find most cities, even some of the more urban exciting ones "boring"? And pray tell, which cities DO meet your criteria?

[losername]

Originally Posted by 599GTO

I have been to most major cities in Western Europe, have been to Europe six times this year, have spent months there at a time at our home in France, old place in Lugano and from experiences, every single European city on that list is boring. To be honest, every city in that top 10 list is absolutely uninhabitable to me personally, but I understand it's their criteria so I personally pay no attention to or dispute these lists as many would find the fact that I could really only keep the obvious very small handful of famous, unequal, glamorous cities as my home base a bit silly (I'm apparently pretentious).

No one, other than the hillbillies living in the countryside of these cities, goes into any of these places for "excitement". Any well-travelled person would agree that these places suck when it comes to buzz and excitement. Why isn't Zurich in the top 10? It happens to be my favorite boring city and I would rather be bored-to-death in Zurich than Vienna as Zurich's location is more central to major cultural and entertainment centers. Helsinki? Just kill me. I don't care about Australia or Canada and tend to ignore them.

Wow, all the travelling hasen't done this old soul a lick of good has it. If I had to guess I would say his fav cities would be : Ibiza, Tel Aviv, insert party city, insert party city, etc.

[ukw]

Originally Posted by 599GTO

I have been to most major cities in Western Europe, have been to Europe six times this year, have spent months there at a time at our home in France, old place in Lugano and from experiences, every single European city on that list is boring. To be honest, every city in that top 10 list is absolutely uninhabitable to me personally, but I understand it's their criteria so I personally pay no attention to or dispute these lists as many would find the fact that I could really only keep the obvious very small handful of famous, unequal, glamorous cities as my home base a bit silly (I'm apparently pretentious).

No one, other than the hillbillies living in the countryside of these cities, goes into any of these places for "excitement". Any well-travelled person would agree that these places suck when it comes to buzz and excitement. Why isn't Zurich in the top 10? It happens to be my favorite boring city and I would rather be bored-to-death in Zurich than Vienna as Zurich's location is more central to major cultural and entertainment centers. Helsinki? Just kill me. I don't care about Australia or Canada and tend to ignore them.

Okay, but places like Zurich and Berlin etc. are in the top-20 or 30, so that's not really what we're arguing about here. The general point is that American cities aren't in the same league as Euro cities. Whether you restrict that to the top 10 or 20 is up to you. I don't like the Anglosphere myself. The point is it would be unusual to find a concentration of US cities in near the top of that list compared to Euro/Australian cities, and that doesn't sit well with a lot of American posters here -- but that's because they lack a true understanding of where US cities rank. Have you noticed there's hardly a single thread in this forum about European cities? It's 90% Cleveland, Baltimore, LA, etc., sometimes Canadian cities. Unless ShiRO or someone from Europe posts a thread about Rotterdam or Berlin.

I would've thought the Skyscraperpage.com crowd would be better-travelled or better informed.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Proper Title: Cities the English Like.

They really **LOVE** to rank cities

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by SHiRO

Maybe it's you who is the problem if you find Melbourne, Sydney, Toronto and Vienna boring. Frankly, I don't know what you are even doing on this forum, let alone the City Discussion forum if you find most cities, even some of the more urban exciting ones "boring"? And pray tell, which cities DO meet your criteria?

Not enough rich cunts in these cities for him, thank fuck.

[MolsonExport]

Vienna....boring???

Not possible. Wonderful, wonderful city on every level. Among the least boring cities that I have had the pleasure to visit.

[MolsonExport]

These lists always bring out the best in the Forum.

[destroycreate]

Originally Posted by ukw

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...

"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..."

LMAO

You're using city data threads for back up now? Your post it so ridiculous I can't even.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Pretty sure 599GTO is a parody/troll account.

Which begs the question: Even if its not a fake account, why are we giving his posts any attention?

[mhays]

He seems pretty real to me....just very insecure, which he covers by trying to sound rich, whether he is or not.

[pico44]

Originally Posted by ukw

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...

I actually appreciate posts such as these. Someone capable of such nonsense is, in essence, making a public service announcement: "Please disregard everything I say for the rest of my life".

[Crawford]

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.

You're using SSP criteria, not "normal person" criteria. These rankings are stupid because they pick very specific indicators that will favor small Angloshere and Nordic countries, when they are irrelevent for actual real-world locational decisionmaking.

-Crime is comparable, except for violent crime, which is a non-issue for average people, even in Detroit or New Orleans. No one living in a middle class area of Metro Detroit is a statistically elevated risk of violent crime relative to anywhere else.

-Mobility is the issue, not transit. U.S. cities typically have very good mobility relative to other first world nations.

-Wealth disparity is irrelevant. Median income is obviously key, because that's how the "middle" lives. The U.S. is richer than almost anywhere in terms of median income.

-"Public Works funding" is irrelevent and SSP-speak. I don't even know what this means (as if U.S. spends comparatively less on public works, or as if there's some causal linkage between whether spending is public or private).

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by SHiRO

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

I love this non-logic. Visiting a place apparently confers authority. "Zimbabwe isn't poorer than Switzerland, because I have never been to Zimbabwe"

Originally Posted by SHiRO

Paris is on the list!

Wrong. Not ranked in the posted list.

Originally Posted by SHiRO

And noone wants to live in Venice, the locals are abandoning it.

Absurd non-logic. Venice is one of the most expensive and desirable places on the planet.

"The populations of the richest parts of Manhattan, Paris and London are declining. The locals are abandoning these places. Therefore no one wants to live in Manhattan, Paris, and London."

Wealthy people take up more space and have 5 homes. In a small geography with development constraints, relative population growth has nothing to do with relative desirability.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by 599GTO

I have been to most major cities in Western Europe, have been to Europe six times this year, have spent months there at a time at our home in France, old place in Lugano and from experiences, every single European city on that list is boring. To be honest, every city in that top 10 list is absolutely uninhabitable to me personally, but I understand it's their criteria so I personally pay no attention to or dispute these lists as many would find the fact that I could really only keep the obvious very small handful of famous, unequal, glamorous cities as my home base a bit silly (I'm apparently pretentious).

Amen.

The only city on the Top 10 that isn't boring relative to size/importance is Sydney. These lists always pick the boring Anglosphere cities.

Melbourne, Vienna, Vancouver, and Toronto are ok, in absolute terms, but pretty boring relative to size/importance. Toronto has 7 million people, Vienna is a cultural hegemon and seat of empire, relative to their importance they're pretty bland. I mean, compare Toronto to a Madrid, or a Vienna to a Berlin, and they're looking pretty bad (in terms of vibrancy, not in terms of the studies weird variables).

[mhays]

Oh Crawford, off in his own little bubble. Crime is an infatuation of the TV watching masses, and probably a lot less of an issue on SSP. The quality of public infrastructure is likewise a major topic of the general public, like anytime they're trying to get somewhere. Urban residents tend to put public transit pretty high on the list, hence the fact they generally vote yes for funding it.

The "you haven't been there" claim is usually a weak argument. But when the topic is whether a city is "boring," it's extremely relevant. If you haven't been there, and the topic is a big city, it's a pretty stupid claim.

As for Venice (yes I've been there recently!), locals are leaving not only because it's expensive but because it's so flooded with tourists that it's harder to live there now. And the sea level thing.