The Top 10 Most Livable Cities

[Haljackey 17,398]

The results are in for 2007!!

According to the Economist Magazine, Vancouver has been selected the world's most livable city for the fifth year in a row!  With all the great cities in this day and age, I can't believe that Vancouver has taken this title for five straight years!

Heres a link to the article:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2007/08/23/bc-vancouver.html

(there are many more articles on this topic, but this is what I could find)

Here is the list of the 10 most livable cities with a livability index for 2007:

(the livability index indicates the quality of living in that city.  0% would be the most livable and 100% would be the most unlivable)

Top 10 cities	Livability index (%)
1. Vancouver	1.3
2. Melbourne	1.8
3. Vienna	2.3
4. Perth	2.5
5. Toronto	3.0
6. Adelaide	3.0
7. Sydney	3.2
8. Copenhagen	3.7
9. Geneva	3.9
10. Zurich	3.9

As you can see, many Canadian and Australian cities made the top 10, but no American or Asian cities managed to.  Also note some of the sizable cities that made the chart (like Toronto and Sydney).  Interesting, eh?

Heres an article explaining why Vancouver is #1

http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourview/britishcolumbia/2007/08/what_makes_vancouver_a_liveabl.html

What are your thoughts?  Do you think this list is accurate on a global stage in todays world?  Why / why not?

[lipman0 0]

all i have to say is good job Vancouver cuz its really a beautiful city and Toronto did good. didnt expect it would make it since i live here and there are a couple of problems. But for a large city, toronto has a low crime rate and it very diverse and i guess thats why its among the TOP 10!

[manman99 2]

meh. Sure Vancouver is wondeful Im all for that! But some of these cities i barely even hear about, let alone I barely knew they existed.

Like Adelaide, Perth( I know a Perth Amboy), Copenhagen, these cities barely make the cut for me because I have never even heard of them, maybe because I really dont studty european cities, but, a little bit more recognizable cities would be lovely.

As for Toronto, Sydney, and Geneva, im fine with, jus alittle antsy about the whole"top ten liveale cities"

To me "livable" means you can live in it. So when you say liveable only for 10 cities, does that mean, that all the other cities people, die??

[Duke87 1,070]

As I always say, these lists are meaningless since they are from the perspective of one group or organization, and not from the perspectives of the people living in the cities surveyed.

So why do people keep posting them?

[Haljackey 17,398]

manman99: All of these cities are recognizable. Its from a world view, and the Earth is a big place. Just because you haven't heard of em doesn't mean they don't exist. They are there on the map, and are quite nice cities indeed (thats what made them rank in the top 10!)

Duke87: Although I value your opinion, the Economist is one of the world's most trusted and valuable sources when it comes to topics such as this. They do indeed survey the people living in the city, its geography/demography as well as numerous other features such as average income per capita, health, crime, etc. With all that information, thats how they determine the Livability index of a city, and then compare it to the other cities surveyed around the globe. Thats where the top 10 comes from, and that is an accurate way of judging on how "livable" a city is.

Transportation, infrastructure, and terrorism targets are among a few of other things that could affect a city's score. Also its interesting to note that the USA doesn't have a publicly funded health care system, that may have been why a US city didn't get on the top 10.

There are a lot of factors at stake here, and a lot of cities surveyed (132), so making the top 10 is very difficult.

[countryjhawk 0]

Im surprised Denver, Portland, or Seattle wern't there.

[david1314 44]

^ Bingo...well called countryjhawk.

It seems like The Economist Magazine totally ignored cost of living. Right now with the Dollar so weak, there's no reason US cities shouldn't have been peppered in there.

[manman99 2]

haljackey-since when is any "big"organization worth trusting anymore, it can just be a lie to make people either visit, or move to those cities because they cry for more people.

[intensivecarebear 0]

I lived in Geneva for a while, and I can see why it's on the list. But it's just so ungodly expensive there! There are many other great cities out there with a much lower cost of living. But we all have our own opinions about the most livable cities.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Vancouver may be the most livable city on earth, but The Economist has consistently rated Ireland as the best country in which to live, with high employment, a high standard of living, low crime and and the highest quality of life index in the world

[Mr. Glamazon 9]

To Countryjayhawk: Denver is a beautiful and very liveable city. We're one of the healthiest and skinniest cities in the nation, and we were ranked as one of the best cities for singles, but if you've lived here, you know that it's shortcomings are very evident. Denver public schools is doing terribly, foreclosures are sky-rocketing, and the gang activity is increasing. Maybe one day.

[manman99 2]

Mr. Glamazon-foreclosures are skyrocketing across the United States, and gang violence is also becoming worse. But Denver has had its moments of good and evil. NYC also. LA, well, thats been kinda the influence on the whole gang thing. Not saying it is to blame its just that, things go in there good, and then they come out bad.

[Deathamphetimine 2]

I agree with countryhawk, why is Portland not on the list? My uncle lives in Beaverton just outside of Portland, and the city is magnificent. I can see why Seattle didn't make the list with Pierce County also being named the "meth capital of the US" or Denver with ....well, never been to Denver, so I can't say any positive of negative aspects, but my mother was born there, and I have heard both good and bad. I live in the "south," so I understand why cities like Atlanta, Miami, or Tampa didn't make the list, all southern US cities just suck. Sprawl and crime with little or no public transportation define this region. But kudos to our Canadian brothers for knowing how to build a quality city, eh.

[Bordz 0]

u know it's not hard to see why no US cities have been picked, crimne in them is unbelievable comapred to the top 10 cities. I'm also sorry that you can't see that the cities picked really are the best to live in. Geez get out to australia to see why these cities are considered the most livable

[ajay_law 1]

w00t. Go Aus, especially Melbourne, it is always up there with Vancouver. Melbourne definately deserves to be on the list because I have been there probably close to 1000 times and it is really clean for a city of its size. There is not much graffiti also, when I went to Auckland last year there was graffiti on every corner, but in Melbourne they call graffiti 'art'. Quite obviously, it looks like Australia, Canada and Switzerland are the best countries in the world to live in.

[norwoodman 0]

Originally posted by: manman99

Like Adelaide, Perth( I know a Perth Amboy), Copenhagen, these cities barely make the cut for me because I have never even heard of them, maybe because I really dont studty european cities, but, a little bit more recognizable cities would be lovely.

quote>

 

Both Perth and Adelaide are Australian cities. I live in Adelaide.

[ExiL3 10]

Belfastuniguy: and the UN have rated Norway the best in 6 years in row... so what, there are SOOO many different nominators now that you can't say who wins, and who doesn't.

Of course the only winners are those who consistently get the highest rankings. 

manman99: not to sound insulting or anything, but just because your not that good at world geography doesn't mean that these cities deserved it. Copenhagen for once is the capital of Denmark, Perth is in Australia and is the most isolated city in the world (in distance to next major city). I don't know why American cities get so low rankings, though it seems to me (from all the different research and polls) that American cities consistently get low rankings...

Australia is safe to say the best continent to live on in the world (it being the smallest continent, but one of the largest countries in the world).

take care,

[mencc1701 0]

If I had to guess why American cities don't make the top ten, I'd say it's probably due to relatively high crime rates and a much slower rate of gentrification in historic areas and downtown cores. The extremely high levels of segregation in American cities probably doesn't help, either.

[perozzo 0]

Vancouver deserved number 1. It's beautiful, It has a low crime rate. Also vancouver has a large number of parks and is probibly one of the worlds most active cities.

[jamietoronto 0]

Nice Vancouver and my city Toronto! (haha montreal). I think they should have population standards. It's just not fair to compare Geneva and Zurich (Combined urban population: 500,000) to a city like Toronto (urban pop. 5,000,000) Toronto still won, but still.

[mencc1701 0]

^ Hmmm, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Toronto the largest city to make that list? Metro Toronto pop is about 5.7 million right now, and I don't think Sydney is quite that big.

[Gozer_Jep 0]

well, so what that i know which of the big cities are the best to live in: i would never want to live in a big city, just let me live in a little city of around 100.000 citisens, thats much more livable for me than such big cities (although they can be very beautiful).

[Shingure 56]

New York should have been in the top 10. It's the USA financial center...Alot of money goes through there.

Edit: Im Suprised no Japanese Cities made the list . They are amoung the most beautiful and they are very large .

[mencc1701 0]

I like both small and big cities, but from living in Ottawa (1.2 million) I can tell you that big cities are just as livable as small ones, but with the added benefits of quality public transit and greater services.

[Haljackey 17,398]

You are right in a way, jamietoronto and mencc1701. However, the Economist compares the cities themselves, not the entire urban area (like the GTA for Toronto). Thus, Toronto's population is only 2,503,281 (from the 2006 census) compared with an metro area with 5,597,000 residents. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Sydney's population of the city itself is a mere 164,547 (from the 2007 Census) compared with 4,284,379 residents in Greater Sydney. Even with this, Toronto is the largest city on the list both the city itself and its urban area, and at #5, it makes a strong statement for livability compared with other cities with a similar population to Toronto.

---

On another note...

    I do have to agree what many people are saying about American cities and why they didn't make the list. They really lacked in health care (its not free in the USA), safety, and many are considered terrorism targets ("Death To America" can't be good for a country's image internationally). Also many American cities are sprawled with many additional communities, and only the city itself is counted. Other things to consider are a city's infrastructure (Ex. a city with "structurally deficient" bridges won't help a city's rank on this list), environment (air quality, quantity and quality of green space and parks,etc.). This list just shows that America has some work to do if it wants its cities to compete in a world stage (in terms of livability) in today's day and age.

---

EDIT: It is interesting that no Japanese made the list.  I'd bet some of them are not much further past the top 10, but they never managed to crack the top 10.  Its obvious why no Chinese cities made the list because of air quality (if you not used to the air, you better wear a mask) as well as a high level of corruption, crime, and the huge rich/poor gap.  The Olympics may help China out, but many of the tourists during the games may be wearing a mask... not a good sign about China at all.

It's too bad for America, South America, Africa, and Asia... But there are only 10 spots in the top 10, so making the ranks is difficult.  Maybe next year?

[Shingure 56]

Im just suprised that not one asain city made the list. That just boggles my mind ...

[dscampbell 181]

Originally posted by: manman99 meh. Sure Vancouver is wondeful Im all for that! But some of these cities i barely even hear about, let alone I barely knew they existed.

Like Adelaide, Perth( I know a Perth Amboy), Copenhagen, these cities barely make the cut for me because I have never even heard of them, maybe because I really dont studty european cities, but, a little bit more recognizable cities would be lovely.

quote>

 

OMG! I mean, Copenhagen is only a nations capitol (of a NATO and EU parter non the less) And Perth and Adelaide are not in Europe but in Australia And well, yeah, thei're relativly small on a world scale. But come on, regarding Copenhagen as unkown? 1 microsecond at google would give you enough info to probably accurately recreate it in SC4 (I'm not from Denmark by the way )

[Haljackey 17,398]

dscampbell:  I do agree with you, this is a worldwide topic, so we need a more worldwide view on this issue.  If you don't know your cities too well, just don't bash them and indicate that they are insignificant or don't exist.  The truth is, THEY DO, and they are quite nice places to live according to this survey!

---

Heres another link to the story to learn more about how the rankings were decided:

http://www.economist.com/markets/rankings/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8908454

---

And everyone, lets keep this thread clean please.  If you have nothing neutral or positive to contribute, then please keep your comments to yourself.  Thanks!

[Shingure 56]

Toronto and Vancouver and all of those other cities are at risk too. So they cant imply that way that the risk of getting hit by an attack is higher in larger areas.

[confused04 14]

I wish the "study" would have shared its methodology instead of just a handful of the 40 criteria... some of which I find difficult to measure.  For example... "culture".  The only way to quantify this is to account for attendance figures for museums and such which inflates certain cities as it focuses on what I call "classical culture".  Many cities, such as Minneapolis may be underestimated because there are many non-traditional  "culture" institutions that can't be measured such as spoken word and private art shows in the Uptown neighborhood. I imagine there are other criteria that are poorly quantified adding to my doubt to this survey.

Regarding infrastructure, I hate this perception that ONLY the US has dangerous bridges.  Many Canadian cities have bridge problems as well.  Bridge collapses aren't the norm in the US. Suddenly once I-35 W collapsed, we have been labeled as irresponsible and "living dangerously".  Infrastructure dangers exist ACROSS Europe and North America. Statistically its not surprising that we had a bridge collapse since we have more bridges than anyone else, over half a million I believe (if 17% = 78,000 ; you can figure out how many bridges there are). Perception of our bridge problem is heightened by news outlets who latched on to the bridge disaster. I've read international responses to the disaster in foreign media outlets and few seriously address their own infrastructure and all claim "We take better care of our bridges" with little to know factual basis on this. The US is far more open with this type of information making us far easier to criticize though it is hardly an indication that we purposely neglect our infrastructure. The definition of "structurally deficient" is not to mean "imminent collapse" or even "high risk of death" but that ONE... ONE criteria out of I believe 9 is not up to optimal standards. Thats like calling your computer "deficient" if 10% of your hard drive is used.  Not to say we don't have bridge problems... my own city has proven that, but I don't think US cities failed to make the list because of bridge concerns. 

Regarding "health care not being free" in the US, if that was criteria for this survey, then I find it absurd. Health care is not "free" in the social sense, but we don't turn you away if you need medical attention.  Distribution of living costs is different in the US.  We pay less in many areas you pay more.  Its like saying "gas prices in Canada are higher, its should rank low in 'transportation".  Its clearly an absurd statement. The study should not rank how costs are distributed in "livability". If that is the case, then I would personally rank Toronto lower due to astronomical housing costs. I want to know what cities were listed in the survey because 132 is a very small number of cities from across the world (with some countries being entirely skipped). Many of the worlds "medium" sized cities are in fact the best places to live so I wonder how many of these were entirely skipped.