Best and worse cities

Food, recipes, fashion, sport, education, exercise, sexuality, travel.
Post Reply
User avatar
Gob
Posts: 33646
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:40 am

Best and worse cities

Post by Gob »

Vancouver topped the list of the world's most liveable cities for the fifth straight year, while Melbourne claimed second place from Vienna and Australian and Canadian cities dominated the list's top 10 spots.

Sydney was in seventh place.

In the annual survey by the Economist Intelligence Unit, the Canadian west coast city and 2010 Winter Olympics host scored 98 per cent on a combination of stability, health care, culture and environment, education, and infrastructure -- a score unchanged from last year.

Although Melbourne pipped the Austrian capital for silver medal, there was no other major change near the top of the list of 140 cities worldwide. Auckland, New Zealand, came in 10th.

"Mid-sized cities in developed countries with relatively low population densities tend to score well by having all the cultural and infrastructural benefits on offer with fewer problems related to crime or congestion," said Jon Copestake, editor of the report, in a statement.

Pittsburgh was the top US city with 29th place - just ahead of Honolulu - while Los Angeles moved up three places to 44th and New York held onto the 56th spot.

London moved up one place to 53rd while Paris came in at number 16.

The top Asian city was Osaka at number 12, tying Geneva, Switzerland and beating out the Japanese capital of Tokyo, which came in at 18.

Hong Kong came in at 31 but Beijing, capital of the world's most populous nation and No. 2 economy, straggled in at 72.

There was also little change at the bottom, with Harare, the capital of Zimbabwe, once again claiming the worst position with a rating of 37.5 percent, narrowing beating out the Bangladesh capital of Dhaka.

The Economist Intelligence Unit survey ranks cities based on 30 factors such as healthcare, culture and environment, and education and personal safety.

Following is a list of the top 10 most liveable cities as ranked by The Economist Intelligence Unit:

1. Vancouver, Canada

2. Melbourne, Australia

3. Vienna, Austria

4. Toronto, Canada

5. Calgary, Canada

6. Helsinki, Finland

7. Sydney, Australia

8. (equal) Perth, Australia

8. (equal) Adelaide, Australia

10. Auckland, New Zealand

The bottom 10 cities were:
1. Harare, Zimbabwe

2. Dhaka , Bangladesh

3. Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea

4. Lagos, Nigeria

5. Algiers , Algeria

6. Karachi, Pakistan

7. Douala, Cameroon

8. Tehran, Iran

9. Dakar, Senegal

10. Colombo, Sri Lanka



http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-new ... 1b29d.html
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”

dgs49
Posts: 3458
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:13 pm

Re: Best and worse cities

Post by dgs49 »

The criteria are always subject to second guessing, but I wonder about (1) cost of living, and (2) climate. Pittsburgh has a great (low) COL, but damnable climate, with a lot of rain and overcast.

More importantly, the criteria presume that "cities" are the best places to live. Most people - at least in the U.S. - don't live in cities at all, but in rural areas and smaller communities.

Do the masses of people really care whether they live near a museum, university, opera house, or hospital? I suspect they don't. Nor do they "miss" traffic jams, pollution, higher prices that go with denser populations, or urban crime.

And how many people actually decide where to live based on external factors? Some do, but most chose to live either where they were raised, or where some employer demands that they reside.

Conversely, my wife and I are right now going through the process of deciding where we will live in a couple years after retirement. Leaning toward North Carolina.

Andrew D
Posts: 3150
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 5:01 pm
Location: North California

Re: Best and worse cities

Post by Andrew D »

Actually, according to the 2000 census, 79.219% of Americans live in urban areas, 58.274% live in urban areas with populations greater than 200,000, and only 20.781% of people live in rural areas.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.

dgs49
Posts: 3458
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:13 pm

Re: Best and worse cities

Post by dgs49 »

It all depends on definitions, doesn't it?

I live in "an urban area," about half a mile from the local grange hall.

What some would include in an urban SMSA others would describe as living in small communities, often on farms.

The vast majority of Americans live in municipalities with populations of less than 10,000, or in unincorporated areas.

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 17125
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Best and worse cities

Post by Scooter »

58.274% live in urban areas with populations greater than 200,000
"The dildo of consequence rarely comes lubed." -- Eileen Rose

"Colonialism is not 'winning' - it's an unsustainable model. Like your hairline." -- Candace Linklater

oldr_n_wsr
Posts: 10838
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:59 am

Re: Best and worse cities

Post by oldr_n_wsr »

Leaning toward North Carolina.
My wifes cousin moved to North Carolina. We visited them when we were checking out colleges for our daughter (Univ of North Carolina at Chapel Hill was on her list). Nice area, new malls and developments, looks like the place was up and coming (this was 5 years ago). her cousin and hsband founr that the locals are not very friendly to all the "newbies" moving into "their" state.
Her cousin ended up moving back up here.

We also spend a week every other summer renting a house on the outer banks. There they love the out of towners as that is their bread and butter.

Post Reply