Economist "Most/Least Livable" Cities 2014

[NorthernDancer]

Originally Posted by Crawford

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

Saying a place is stupid when you've never been there is ignorant. Saying Calgary is boring is stupid. You've managed ignorance and stupidity in a single sentence. Bravo! That's quite an accomplishment.

Unlike you, I've spent plenty of time in Calgary. It is anything but a "boring" city. Your comment about Calgary being "boring" is absurd and destroys what little credibility you had left.

Stick to talking about Brooklyn. You make a fool of yourself when you talk about any other place.

[NorthernDancer]

Originally Posted by Crawford

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).

The Toronto Census Metropolitan Area had 5,583,064 people in 2011. But you're saying it now has 7 million? So it's grown by more than 1.4 million in the last three years? Wow! That's amazing! Thank you for your insight Prof. Crawford.

And you've never been to Vancouver. You admitted as much in another recent thread. So why are you commenting on how it's "boring" relative to it's size/importance. Once again you are wrong, and are making a fool of yourself.

[dc_denizen]

Seattle is not on this list (outranked by five American cities, including Atlanta and Pittsburgh) while its neighbor 100 miles to the north (with similar recreation, worse cost of living, worse job market, worse educational opportunities, and similar cultural opportunities) is in the top five. I still find this very very strange.

[Jaborandi]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Seattle is not on this list (outranked by five American cities, including Atlanta and Pittsburgh) while its neighbor 100 miles to the north (with similar recreation, worse cost of living, worse job market, worse educational opportunities, and similar cultural opportunities) is in the top five. I still find this very very strange.

I think Buffalo feels the same sense of irritation.

BTW, I love Buffalo.

[MonkeyRonin]

Every year when this list is published someone predictably complains of those cities at the top as being "boring"...which is completely besides the point (and which seems more like a huffy resentment of the results than any meaningful critique of the methodology). This isn't a list of the world's most colourful, vibrant cities - it's a list of those with the highest quality of life. And even if it were, American cities still wouldn't do wouldn't do any better than the Northern European/Canadian/Australian ones unless crime, decay, and inequality are your idea of things that make a place "not boring".

[dc_denizen]

Seattle doesn't have crime, decay or inequality though. Are the us cities guilty by association?

[599GTO]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

it's a list of those with the highest quality of life.

For people who can't afford better.

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by Jaborandi

I think Buffalo feels the same sense of irritation.

BTW, I love Buffalo.

Next year, buffalo takes over from Pittsburgh as #1 in the USA...u heard it here first!

[Gresto]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I love this non-logic. Visiting a place apparently confers authority.

Actually, yes, having visited a place versus having not visited a place does confer some authority. Sheesh.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by 599GTO

For people who can't afford better.

Hmm, we have some people like ssiguy complaining about cities on the list not being affordable enough and now someone complaining that they're bargain priced options? Wow, what a thread.

Regardless it's clear that most of these are not inexpensive, bargain priced cities.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Gresto

Actually, yes, having visited a place versus having not visited a place does confer some authority. Sheesh.

Obviously considering boring and interesting are things that we experience and are not statistics.

Unless perhaps you were to poll people who have lived in or visited a variety of cities on which ones they found most boring or interesting. Then you could quote a stat like " 72% of people surveyed who visited both city A and city B in 2013 found city B more interesting."

But of course such a stat would rely entirely on the experiences of the people who were surveyed.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by NorthernDancer

Saying a place is stupid when you've never been there is ignorant. Saying Calgary is boring is stupid. You've managed ignorance and stupidity in a single sentence. Bravo! That's quite an accomplishment.

And I will continue to do so. I'm sorry if it gets your homer panties in a bunch, but, no, Calgary is not a particularly exciting city, and no, people aren't moving there for the art scene, the nightlife, the scenery, or the progressive feel. It's oil jobs.

Your reacting with personal insults, and nothing substantive, pretty much confirms this.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Every year when this list is published someone predictably complains of those cities at the top as being "boring"...which is completely besides the point

No, it's absolutely central to the point. A place, in order to be "livable" should have something that is desirable relative to other cities, rather than something that forces one to live there.

Saying North Dakota is appealing because of oil, or Venice isn't appealing because of population losses, completely misses the nuance in location choice.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Gresto

Actually, yes, having visited a place versus having not visited a place does confer some authority. Sheesh.

No, actually it confirms no authority whatsoever. Data confirms authority.

And it's a stupid point anyways. If your statement were true, then one would have to visit every city on earth to determine whether or not Adelaide, Helsinki, and Calgary were "exciting", because it's a relative ranking. These cities aren't being ranked in vacuum, but to all the cities of the world.

[NorthernDancer]

Originally Posted by Crawford

And I will continue to do so. I'm sorry if it gets your homer panties in a bunch, but, no, Calgary is not a particularly exciting city, and no, people aren't moving there for the art scene, the nightlife, the scenery, or the progressive feel. It's oil jobs.

Your reacting with personal insults, and nothing substantive, pretty much confirms this.

It's more exciting than any similar-sized American city, except perhaps New Orleans.

Continue making an idiot of yourself though. You've never been there, and have no idea what you're talking about. It is not a boring city in the slightest, contrary to your ignorant comments.

And no, I am not a "homer". I don't, and have never lived there.

I'm not reacting with "personal insults". I'm calling out an idiot who judges a place he's never been, and has zero knowledge of. You make a fool of yourself with pretty much every post you make. I'm not the only one who's noticed this.

[NorthernDancer]

Originally Posted by Crawford

No, actually it confirms no authority whatsoever. Data confirms authority.

And it's a stupid point anyways. If your statement were true, then one would have to visit every city on earth to determine whether or not Adelaide, Helsinki, and Calgary were "exciting", because it's a relative ranking. These cities aren't being ranked in vacuum, but to all the cities of the world.

So you have "data" proving that Calgary is "boring"? By all means, share your link to this proof. I think you're just making shit up and have no idea what you're talking about. But you're invited by all means to prove me wrong.

You're arguably a worse troll than GTO599 or whatever his name is.

[NorthernDancer]

Originally Posted by Crawford

No, it's absolutely central to the point. A place, in order to be "livable" should have something that is desirable relative to other cities, rather than something that forces one to live there.

Saying North Dakota is appealing because of oil, or Venice isn't appealing because of population losses, completely misses the nuance in location choice.

Calgary has lots that make it desirable relative to other cities. Low crime, including VERY low violent crime. Good schools (both public schools and University). Extremely clean (the largest city in North America where the river is just as clean exiting the city as entering the city). Excellent recreational opportunities. Excellent shopping and cultural opportunities compared to similar-sized cities. Good public transit, including an LRT more heavily used than American cities several times larger.

You are completely clueless. Though this seems to be a pattern with you.

If your statement were true, then one would have to visit every city on earth to determine whether or not Adelaide, Helsinki, and Calgary were "exciting", because it's a relative ranking. These cities aren't being ranked in vacuum, but to all the cities of the world.

It's not a list of the world's most "exciting" cities. It's a list of the world's most livable cities. You're just butthurt because there are no American cities near the top of the list. But it's not just this list. There are no American cities near the top of any of these lists of world's most livable cities, be it this ranking (EUI), Monocle, Mercer Consulting, etc.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by NorthernDancer

It's more exciting than any similar-sized American city, except perhaps New Orleans.

If you think it's questionable whether Calgary or New Orleans are more exciting, it's not really worth debating. You're just a horribly biased homer.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by NorthernDancer

So you have "data" proving that Calgary is "boring"? By all means, share your link to this proof.

You can't seem to distinguish between objective and subjective data. I have no idea what sort of proof you require to challenge your biases.

[NorthernDancer]

Originally Posted by Crawford

If you think it's questionable whether Calgary or New Orleans are more exciting, it's not really worth debating. You're just a horribly biased homer.

Unlike you, I've actually been to both cities. You're just an ignoramus talking out of your ass. You think you have been bestowed experience with cities you've never been to. Several other have noticed this ITT alone. It's not just me.