Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
According to the Telegraph UK which also has same list: "The world's 10 best cities to live in, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit global "liveability" study, which looks at how "tolerable" it is to live in a particular place given its crime levels, threat of conflict, quality of medical care, levels of censorship, temperature, schools and transport links"
Maybe more on this forum should start taking notice of Australian cities instead of dismissing them. But since so few have been here I guess one can't expect that...
The people who write this drivel usually have an agenda. That's what you're seeing here.
The give only the briefest description of their criteria and how it was applied. So they can pretty much rank any place any way they want.
The report was done by The Economist, specifically their pay-for-access "Intelligence Unit." They give only the brief description because they don't want to pay for the report. The summary is free.
The methodology is largely the same, just ignore the spatial component. As Nei mentioned, it's not really about "best city," it's about "best place to live." Atlanta, for example, comes in at number 12, far ahead of NYC at 23. The point isn't that Atlanta is a better (as in more urban) city than NYC. It's that Atlanta is a better place to live. It's kind of the trite argument about how cities are built for cars. No, they're built for people -- who use cars. There's some fantastic cities that just don't work well for the people who live in them. Say Budapest... amazing city, one of the most beautiful in the world by any account. Not necessarily the greatest place to live. I'd say Rio is even more so. Maybe not quite as beautiful, but for most of the people living in Rio it's a fleabag.
The report was done by The Economist, specifically their pay-for-access "Intelligence Unit." They give only the brief description because they don't want to pay for the report. The summary is free.
The methodology is largely the same, just ignore the spatial component. As Nei mentioned, it's not really about "best city," it's about "best place to live."
They do include "sprawl" as a factor, from 1-5 where 1 is best (Hong Kong) and 5 is worst (Los Angeles, but also Boston). NYC is on there... and gets a 4.3. New York also gets a "4" in "Cultural Assets", because it only has one -- I kid you not, they used the World Heritage Sites list, which includes the Statute of Liberty but fails to include such places as the Met or the Lincoln Center.
They do include "sprawl" as a factor, from 1-5 where 1 is best (Hong Kong) and 5 is worst (Los Angeles, but also Boston). NYC is on there... and gets a 4.3. New York also gets a "4" in "Cultural Assets", because it only has one -- I kid you not, they used the World Heritage Sites list, which includes the Statute of Liberty but fails to include such places as the Met or the Lincoln Center.
Out of curiosity, do you have a link to that info? As for world heritage sites, it makes sense the Met and the Lincoln Center don't make it, as they're both excellent but not really unique while the Statue of Liberty is, and has historical significance. For living in the city, of course, both the Met and the Lincoln Center is a far better asset than the Statue of Liberty, which is see it once type of attraction.
The sprawl indicator is silly. There's plenty of pedestrian-friendly, busy, dense walkable environments in both NYC and Boston (of course much more in NYC) even with all the sprawl. The fact that sprawly Suffolk County exists doesn't effect the quality of life of someone in Brooklyn. Except:
1) Longer time to reach greenspace
2) Less selection of urban middle-class family neighborhoods, since the bulk of them are in the burbs.
As for world heritage sites, it makes sense the Met and the Lincoln Center don't make it, as they're both excellent but not really unique while the Statue of Liberty is, and has historical significance.
Sure; the Met and the Lincoln Center are important for what's in them and what goes on in them, not what they are. But when you're talking about culture I'd expect them to count.
There's not a city on that list I'd care to live in!
I did a driving tour of Australia back in 1992, got a speeding ticket driving from Brisbane to Sydney, police officer told me if I didn't pay the fine I couldn't return to visit Australia again until I paid it!
I was so bored with Australia by then, I wanted to hug him, give him a big kiss and promise me he wouldn't change his mind!
Tegucigalpa, Honduras or Tijuana, Mexico: now those "dangerous, unlivable" cities appeal to me!
There's not a city on that list I'd care to live in!
I did a driving tour of Australia back in 1992, got a speeding ticket driving from Brisbane to Sydney, police officer told me if I didn't pay the fine I couldn't return to visit Australia again until I paid it!
I was so bored with Australia by then, I wanted to hug him, give him a big kiss and promise me he wouldn't change his mind!
Tegucigalpa, Honduras or Tijuana, Mexico: now those "dangerous, unlivable" cities appeal to me!
You'd rather live in Tijuana then Vancouver, Sydney, Vienna, Helsinki....um...ok.
Last edited by nei; 09-04-2013 at 03:41 PM..
Reason: rude
There's not a 3rd world city in the world that doesn't have their nicer, more livable areas, where you can forget where you are! Try the hillier areas above Chapultepec park in Tijuana sometime, where the wealthier live, with their million-dollar views of the San Diego skyline!
Hmmm ... The Independent is a UK website and 8 of the 10 "best" cities are in the British Commonwealth!
I'm sure that's just a coincidence. NOT.
ROTFLMAO!
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBMW
The people who write this drivel usually have an agenda. That's what you're seeing here.
The give only the briefest description of their criteria and how it was applied. So they can pretty much rank any place any way they want.
The agenda is obviously to promote Australia and Canada. But why get mad at them? U.S. publications do it too.
I don't see why the U.S. should get mad about it, OP. This British publication didn't include British cities. So they weren't taking it out on America. They also didn't include cities in Asia, Latin America, or the Mediterranean. These Top Ten cities to live on are always biased, as BBMW says. I am surprised people actually take them seriously.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hmmm ... The Independent is a UK website and 8 of the 10 "best" cities are in the British Commonwealth! 
