What cities have a high quality of life?

[Buckeye Native 001]

Originally Posted by Gresto

With all this talk of subjectivity and objectivity, I have to wonder if any rational person prefers a filthy, run-down, graffiti-covered city to a clean, orderly one. Is it exciting or urban-minded to be surrounded by schmutz? If so, have at it.

I've yet to visit a city where I didn't find some way to have a good time. That includes some of the more-ridiculed places on this forum like Phoenix, Charlotte, Houston, and the non-Miami parts of Florida. Hell, even places like Kanab, UT and Kingman, AZ had something worth seeing within their respective city limits.

There's no accounting for taste (which I definitely lack) and subjectivity.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Gresto

With all this talk of subjectivity and objectivity, I have to wonder if any rational person prefers a filthy, run-down, graffiti-covered city to a clean, orderly one. Is it exciting or urban-minded to be surrounded by schmutz? If so, have at it.

If this is about New York, the city may be "dirty" but it is not run down. New York may look dirty because the system for trash collection is archaic, and people might be a little to comfortable littering, but NYC's streets and sidewalks are also cleaned multiple times per week. I doubt there's another city in the United States that cleans its streets and sidewalks more frequently than NYC.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Gresto

With all this talk of subjectivity and objectivity, I have to wonder if any rational person prefers a filthy, run-down, graffiti-covered city to a clean, orderly one. Is it exciting or urban-minded to be surrounded by schmutz? If so, have at it.

I would. I mean, to a degree. But generally speaking, sure. Venice and Naples over Schaumburg and Tysons Corner?

I think most urbanists probably would, as older city cores and old, pre-auto areas, in general, tend to be messier and less orderly than suburban/exurban areas.

[homebucket]

Surprised no one has mentioned this yet, but Taipei.

[edale]

Originally Posted by Gresto

With all this talk of subjectivity and objectivity, I have to wonder if any rational person prefers a filthy, run-down, graffiti-covered city to a clean, orderly one. Is it exciting or urban-minded to be surrounded by schmutz? If so, have at it.

Well, NYC is pretty filthy and chaotic. It's infamous for its rats and piles of trash bags on the sidewalks on trash days. It also certainly has run-down parts and plenty of graffiti, too. Yet lots of people prefer it to a cleaner, more orderly city like Salt Lake City or something.

If someone's biggest determinants for quality of life are cleanliness and order, they probably wouldn't find a big messy city like NYC or Paris very pleasant.

[mousquet]

Originally Posted by bilbao58

I've seen (and personally experienced) a lot of "interesting" things in that city over the many years that I've known it. Staying multiple months at a time is a great way experience a place. Staying in really cheap one-star hotels in sketchy neighborhoods increases the "interestingness." I'd say the most "interesting" time was mid-80s. Holy cow!

The inner city has changed a lot since then, much the same way NYC has.
It is almost entirely gentrified today.
Even the northeast neighborhoods that were traditionally plagued by homelessness and drug addiction (crack, heroin...) are widely gentrified now, and the local authorities have been working on driving homeless addicts away to the neighboring suburbs of Seine-Saint-Denis.

In fact, gentrification occurs pretty much over the entire metro area, as the mass transit network and redevelopment keep on spreading.
Of course, the wrong side effect is that lower incomes are driven away; sometimes tens of miles away from the center of the metro area, which is unfair because it makes their lives even rougher.
For instance, it is typically impossible to people who have to clean up offices early in the morning and late at night.
Hence the need for subsidized affordable housing. It is ok as long as it is not concentrated over the same areas. The best policy is definitely to mix market-rate and affordable housing in the same neighborhoods.
And if some pricks don't like it, they're free to move to some place else.

Since cleanliness has been discussed in posts above, I must say gentrification helped a lot in that matter.
Even though I was only a little kid in the 80s, I can remember the city was far grittier and dirtier back then.
Again, it changed like NYC did in that respect.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Too clean > too dirty.

But a place can be too clean (ie. sterile) for my tastes.

the right amount of schmutz can help a place feel more lived-in (ie. character).

Goldilocks was right all along!

There is a big difference between some hardcore urban grit which can make a city very interesting and full of character as opposed to having litter all over the streets.

[Crawford]

Is this too much? I always felt Naples tested the outer limit.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8503...8192?entry=ttu

To me, it's fascinating. Many no doubt prefer Applebees & Sam's Club with convenient parking.

[3rd&Brown]

Maybe Vienna?

I read this article recently. I don't remember all of the details but I came away from it thinking that Vienna was a place with a high standard of living, with tier 1 city amenities, where incomes are high but not overly burdened by living costs.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Is this too much? I always felt Naples tested the outer limit.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8503...8192?entry=ttu

To me, it's fascinating. Many no doubt prefer Applebees & Sam's Club with convenient parking.

I love the Spanish Quarter. It is not for everyone, though.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Is this too much? I always felt Naples tested the outer limit.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8503...8192?entry=ttu

To me, it's fascinating. Many no doubt prefer Applebees & Sam's Club with convenient parking.

I'd prefer to walk around that than a generic business district in North America.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

Maybe Vienna?

I read this article recently. I don't remember all of the details but I came away from it thinking that Vienna was a place with a high standard of living, with tier 1 city amenities, where incomes are high but not overly burdened by living costs.

Vienna is a good one. It's clean, not expensive, and offers just about everything that us urban lovers value highly: transit, walkability, good public spaces, density. It is a city that manages to not be dull while also not being very exciting, if that makes any sense. The main down side is that it is pretty insular and doesn't absorb outsiders very well, in complete contrast to its cousin Berlin.

[Quixote]

l’ll also echo the sentiment regarding Tokyo, having just recently returned from a visit there (first time). Tokyo has a legit argument for being the greatest city on Earth (I still think it’s NYC though), its size, rail system, safety, and cleanliness being a clear notch above its “Big Four” peers.

Moreover, Tokyo is relatively affordable for a city of its stature, and has a homeownership rate of 45%. The urban sprawl beyond the core is very urban by North American and northwestern European standards, with rail service probably (though not sure) operating at relatively high frequencies outside peak hours.

Downsides to living in Tokyo are that dwelling units are tiny, wages have been stagnant for 30+ years, working long hours is pretty common, and there’s a prejudicial culture when it comes to foreigners, even if you are of Japanese descent but not Japanese nationality. The idea of upward mobility seems to be nonexistent, with people being content and having a preference for as much stability (or should I say, little change) as possible.

[Gresto]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

If this is about New York, the city may be "dirty" but it is not run down. New York may look dirty because the system for trash collection is archaic, and people might be a little to comfortable littering, but NYC's streets and sidewalks are also cleaned multiple times per week. I doubt there's another city in the United States that cleans its streets and sidewalks more frequently than NYC.

I didn't have any cities in mind as reference points with regard to "very clean" or "very dirty". Even Toronto, where I have lived my entire life, is sadly no longer really the paragon of cleanliness it once was. I am by no means an expert in the urbanity realm, but I would rather reside in a clean city and maybe visit a dirty one if it offers things worth seeing.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by edale

If someone's biggest determinants for quality of life are cleanliness and order, they probably wouldn't find a big messy city like NYC or Paris very pleasant.

Cleanliness and order can very quickly turn into sterile and boring. The only reason Tokyo and other Japanese cities can get away with it is because they are vibrant and visually busy (i.e., lots of signage, ugly power lines, small-footprint buildings). They feel very raw and organic.

I realized after visiting that I prefer a little more chaos, such as NYC with all the honking and jaywalking. London is probably the best when it comes to balancing order and cleanliness/presentation with the grittiness and spontaneity of a NYC or Paris.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Gresto

I would rather reside in a clean city and maybe visit a dirty one if it offers things worth seeing.

From my experiences, the world is a lot more nuanced than just "clean cities" and "dirty cities".

There are hundreds of shades of gray in the middle, often times within the same city.

When in doubt, follow goldilocks' lead.

[bilbao58]

Originally Posted by mousquet

Even though I was only a little kid in the 80s, I can remember the city was far grittier and dirtier back then.

The winter of '84 was unusually cold. One thing I remember is that when the weather got cold enough, the sidewalks in front of apartment building entrances were covered in poodle shit because no one wanted to go any farther out than that. You had to be careful where you stepped. When it got really REALLY cold, all the poodle shit froze solid so it didn't matter if you stepped on it.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Gresto

With all this talk of subjectivity and objectivity, I have to wonder if any rational person prefers a filthy, run-down, graffiti-covered city to a clean, orderly one. Is it exciting or urban-minded to be surrounded by schmutz? If so, have at it.

I’m here. I left my orderly too clean neighborhood to come to dirty Downtown. It’s hundreds of more exciting, more liveable, you have all kinds of people and not only upper middle class middle aged Whites.

It’s obviously not the dirty itself that make Downtown the most exciting place I’ve ever been, that’s only a side note, a tiny inconvenience. I’m to busy enjoy life here too pay so much attention on it.

And as ihearthed said about NYC, the region is cleaned several times a day. The thing is the region has life half of the city’s homeless population and that might be challenging.

[Gresto]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

From my experiences, the world is a lot more nuanced than just "clean cities" and "dirty cities".

There are hundreds of shades of gray in the middle, often times within the same city.

Of course. I did not mean to imply this was binary.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Gresto

Of course. I did not mean to imply this was binary.

Well, my main point was that cleanliness tends to vary quite a great deal WITHIN most cities.

My own city is very much like that.