Well, The Economist has published a study of the livability of cities. That pointer is actually to the summary, not the actual report, which will cost you $200. Anyhow, in the #1 position is Vancouver, and in #2 is Melbourne, which I’m starting to think of as my second home.
Contributions
Comment feed for ongoing:
From: Janne (Aug 26 2007, at 17:34)
Am I the only once slightly disconcerted by the mention in the blurb below the list that they've apparently taken the risk of terrorist attacks into consideration for centers like New York and Tokyo? Makes me wonder just how well thought out that list is; unless your address is in Baghdad or similar, the risk of it happening to you is absolutely minuscule. The threat of being hit by lightning would be a more significant differentiator between major and secondary cities than this, never mind the very real difference due to hurricanes and earthquakes, which is several orders of magnitude more likely to make an impact.
[link]
From: Pat Patterson (Aug 26 2007, at 20:09)
Janne - it's not so much the actual risk of suffering a terrorist attack - much less than being mown down by a taxi - more the worry, which is real for many people, even if it is irrational.
Tim - Vancouver. Hmmm. If they could fix the damn rain it would be just about perfect :-)
Tim (2) - next time you're futzing with your blog, it would be good to be able to see the blog entry and previous comments from the comment page.
Cheers,
Pat
[link]
From: des von bladet (Aug 27 2007, at 00:13)
Being seen on the same list as Geneva and Zurich is surely only going to confirm the prejudice that Cananananada is boring but clean.
(Full disclosure: I live in Groningen in the north of the Netherlands, and I am not in a hurry to relocate.)
[link]
From: Neil (Aug 27 2007, at 01:35)
yep, they need to loose Zürich and Geneva (which are not real cities) and add Amsterdam and San Francisco.
[link]
From: John Cowan (Aug 27 2007, at 04:45)
It's also weird that the "liveability index" is inverted, lower numbers being better. That suggests that they mostly looked at negative factors. Of course, with the actual report being behind that damn paywall, we're not going to know for sure.
[link]
From: Danny (Aug 27 2007, at 10:41)
Hmm, livability or quality of life? On the latter I'd avoid cities like the plague (though not having broadband network access can be inconvenient...).
[link]
From: Roger (Aug 27 2007, at 18:59)
Liveable - only if you you are financially well enough off to be able to afford (and enjoy) living in such select cities. San Francisco, Honolulu, Vancouver, and even Toronto are beautiful but expensive places to visit as it is. You will often find only the wealthy and the poor actually living in the city though - the middle class is pretty much forced out to the distant suburbs.
[link]
From: bloodnok (Aug 27 2007, at 21:10)
crickey! they list toronto as #5! how can that be? i ran away years ago thanks to the awful air, the horrid traffic, the endless winters, the sweaty summers, ...
[link]