Toronto is 5th most liveable city in the world

[wyliepoon]

Link to article


Vancouver tapped as world's most 'livable' city

Canadian Press

August 23, 2007 at 9:24 AM EDT

LONDON — Vancouver has been selected as the world's most “livable city” and Toronto the fifth most livable in a survey of 132 cities by the Economist magazine.

The Economist Intelligence Unit says Vancouver was chosen number-one due to a low crime rate, little threat from instability or terrorism and a highly developed transport and communications infrastructure.

Vancouver scored a livability index of 1.3 per cent, with zero per cent indicating exceptional and 100 per cent indicating intolerable.

The list published on the Economist.com website shows four Australian cities — Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide and Sydney — in the top 10, which also included Vienna, Copenhagen, Geneva and Zurich.

The magazine says traffic and crime rates caused such cities as New York, Tokyo, London, Hong Kong and Paris to score lower.

Large centres like London and New York also lost marks by fears of terror attacks.

Algiers was the least livable city on the list.

http://economist.com/markets/rankin...ory_id=8908454&CFID=16415879&CFTOKEN=94552766

 

[afransen]

Vancouver is nice, but I don't understand why people feel it is so superlative from a livability standpoint.




As an aside, I think I can feel Vancouverites' heads swelling from here.

 

[Hydrogen]

Vancouver is nice, but I don't understand why people feel it is so superlative from a livability standpoint.

It's pretty, has mountains, etc. At least that's what hear all the time.



I wonder what the major difference would be between Dhaka and Algiers?

 

[YoungPauper]

I wonder if they factored cost into any of their analyses of "liveability"? The fact that places like Geneva and Zurich are on that list suggests that it wasn't considered, or if it was, it wasn't considered a particularly important factor. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure many of those cities are theoretically great places to live. I considered going to grad school in Geneva because it seemed like such a great place; however, at the risk of equivocating, don't you have to be able to live somewhere for it to be "liveable" as they call it?

 

[kdub333]

I think they must factor in cost. I say this because I visited Copenhagen for awhile - it was long enough to get an idea of how it would be to live there and it is one of the most expensive cities by far. But other than that, I would consider it number one on the list. So I believe if they have ranked it 8th, it mst be due to cost of living.

 

[Skeezix]

Over at the Economist website, this blurb casts a bit of light on the criteria used:

The Economist Intelligence Unit's LIVEABILITY RANKING, part of the Worldwide Cost of Living Survey, assesses living conditions in 127 cities around the world by looking at nearly 40 individual indicators grouped into five categories: stability; healthcare; culture and environment; education; and infrastructure. The survey gives a rating of 0%-100% and judges a city with a lower score to be the more attractive destination. A rating of 20% is where real problems are seen to begin - anything over 50% places severe restrictions on lifestyle.

The concept of the quality of living index is simple: companies give a premium (usually a percentage of a salary) to employees in locations that present extraordinarily difficult living conditions, excessive physical hardship or notably unhealthy conditions.

The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Expatriate Quality of Life Index quantifies the level of hardship in all of the locations covered by the WCOL survey. This allows direct comparison between locations.

There are five categories included in the index: Stability; Healthcare; Culture & Environment; Education; and Infrastructure. Across the survey a mixture of quantitative and qualitative data are used, which are combined to give an overall Quality of Life Index rating. The index is supported by an extensive city information report.

The Economist Intelligence Unit has given a suggested allowance to correspond with the index rating. However, the actual level of the allowance is often a matter of company policy. It is not uncommon, for example, for companies to pay higher allowances—perhaps up to double the Economist Intelligence Unit’s suggested level. Quality of life scale Index Description Suggested allowance 0-19% There are few, if any, challenges to quality of living 0% 20-29% Although, generally, day-to-day living is fine, 5% some aspects of life may entail problems 30-39% Many negative factors affect day-to-day quality of living 10% 40-49% Quality of life is substantially constrained 15% over 49% Most aspects of living quality are severely restricted 20%

None of the five major categories in the analysis seem to be a natural fit for cost-of-living considerations.

However, the statement that "companies give a premium (usually a percentage of a salary) to employees in locations that present extraordinarily difficult living conditions" suggests that a high cost-of-living would be a factor, as it would make it more difficult for an employee to relocate to, say Copenhagen, without a cost-of-living increase.

Short of paying $200US to get the full report, that's the extent of the information available at the Economist site.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Cost of living doesn't mean the same thing to everyone - this is The Economist, not Down and Out Weekly.

 

[GregWTravels]

Exactly what I was about to post. I don't think folks reading the Economist are in the pay grade where they need to worry about the cost of milk too much.

 

[salvius]

Cost of living seems to be a negligable factor in that top 10 list. It happens, however, to be one of the primary ways I'd use to estimate livability... Vancouver is one of the least livable places in Canada, and Toronto's gaining ground.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

If cost of living was a major factor, some place like Dhaka or Lagos would win this survey.

 

[Skeezix]

If cost of living was a major factor, some place like Dhaka or Lagos would win this survey.

I think the likelihood of getting shot on any given day would probably outweigh the bargains to be had.

 

[syn]

Interesting that they cited Vancouver's low crime rate...it's actually quite a bit higher than Toronto's. For property crime they're tops in all of Canada.

 

[Pep'rJack]

I think I can feel Vancouverites' heads swelling from here.

That is not possible, unless I've missed a recent scientific discovery of 'super-duper-saturation'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersaturation

Perhaps you are feeling their property values swelling to even more morbidly obese levels?

 

[YoungPauper]

I doesn't really matter if the study was done by the High and Mighty Weekly at the behest of the Queen of England. The fact is any definition of "liveability" surely must take into some consideration cost. I don't know if they did or not, but my suspicion, well founded or not, given the magazine, is that they probably did not. Then again, given that there are so many Canadian and Australian cities on the list, which are relatively cheap internationally, at least compared to the New Yorks, Tokyos, and Londons of the world, perhaps they did factor it in to some degree.

Besides which, I'm not sure which magazine you guys/gals are reading, but the Economist has wide circulation. The number of people for which cost is of little to no consideration even amongst the high flying, jet setting, cottage in Bali, readers of the High and Mighty Weekly is negligible. Let this not be interpreted as a suggestion that we should all move to the favelas of Rio because cost conclusively determines liveability. I never suggested that.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

I think the likelihood of getting shot on any given day would probably outweigh the bargains to be had.

And that's why cost of living wasn't a big factor in the survey.