|
|
|
Toronto is 5th most liveable city in the world
- Thread starter wyliepoon
- Start date
Lone Primate
Active Member
I gotta say, though, I'm a little jealous of Australia. Four cities in the top ten? Cripes.
Pep'rJack
Active Member
But isn't that what the rest of the country's always saying about us?
Indeed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
I've never personally seen a dominant, mass case of it this bad (possible exception: the American 'Religious Right' and their perceptions of so-called 'Islamofascism'). It's arguably the definitive element of Van culture, imo.
wyliepoon
Senior Member
Post
Link to article
Top 10 cities list celebrates European snoozers
'Liveability' Should Not Be Equated With Stagnation
Kelly McParland, National Post
Published: Friday, August 24, 2007
In a famous line from his 1949 film The Third Man, Orson Welles, as Harry Lime, disparages Switzerland's renowned tranquility:
"In Italy, for 30 years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder, bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance," Lime sneers.
"In Switzerland, they had brotherly love; they had 500 years of democracy and peace -- and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."
Clearly The Economist magazine is big on cuckoo clocks, not so big on artistic endeavour, judging by the list of the world's "most liveable" cities released yesterday.
Topping the list is Vancouver, followed closely by a pack of European snoozers and a heavy contingent of Australians: Geneva, Zurich, Vienna all make the list. Copenhagen is there, along with Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide and Sydney. Toronto places fifth.
OK, those are obviously all swell cities, but here's a test: Name the last exciting thing you can think of that happened in Zurich.
Having trouble? All right, how about if we combine Zurich and Copenhagen? Zurich, Copenhagen, Perth and Vienna? Still stumped?
Take all 10 most liveable cities together, then, and think of the last time you thought of moving there to get in on all the glamour, excitement and dynamism any one of the 10 is famed for. Uhhhhh ... there were the Olympic Games in Sydney, which was just, um, seven years ago...
Obviously, "liveable" to The Economist does not mean the same as "exciting." Which is fair enough. But does it have to mean the same as "dullsville?"
The Economist's selection criteria is heavy on efficiency (good transportation, reliable communications) and on security (low crime, limited likelihood of terrorism), which are all the same things that go over big in gated communities and old-age homes.
Apparently "liveable" equates with predictability and calm. Sitting under a tree reading a book and sipping tea seems to be the epitome of "liveable."
"Big city buzz can hamper the scores of some cities," The Economist acknowledges. "Global centres such as New York, Tokyo, London, Hong Kong and Paris may find themselves let down precisely because of their size and attractiveness."
Paris, in fact, placed 22nd on the list. London was at 46, New York at 56.
So why, then, are all those cities bigger and more popular than all the liveable cities? And why do so many more people go there to live? One would think "liveable" should have something to do with the desire of people to live there. The Economist 10 may all be great places to make cuckoo clocks. But there's got to be more to life than that.
Link to article
Top 10 cities list celebrates European snoozers
'Liveability' Should Not Be Equated With Stagnation
Kelly McParland, National Post
Published: Friday, August 24, 2007
In a famous line from his 1949 film The Third Man, Orson Welles, as Harry Lime, disparages Switzerland's renowned tranquility:
"In Italy, for 30 years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder, bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance," Lime sneers.
"In Switzerland, they had brotherly love; they had 500 years of democracy and peace -- and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."
Clearly The Economist magazine is big on cuckoo clocks, not so big on artistic endeavour, judging by the list of the world's "most liveable" cities released yesterday.
Topping the list is Vancouver, followed closely by a pack of European snoozers and a heavy contingent of Australians: Geneva, Zurich, Vienna all make the list. Copenhagen is there, along with Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide and Sydney. Toronto places fifth.
OK, those are obviously all swell cities, but here's a test: Name the last exciting thing you can think of that happened in Zurich.
Having trouble? All right, how about if we combine Zurich and Copenhagen? Zurich, Copenhagen, Perth and Vienna? Still stumped?
Take all 10 most liveable cities together, then, and think of the last time you thought of moving there to get in on all the glamour, excitement and dynamism any one of the 10 is famed for. Uhhhhh ... there were the Olympic Games in Sydney, which was just, um, seven years ago...
Obviously, "liveable" to The Economist does not mean the same as "exciting." Which is fair enough. But does it have to mean the same as "dullsville?"
The Economist's selection criteria is heavy on efficiency (good transportation, reliable communications) and on security (low crime, limited likelihood of terrorism), which are all the same things that go over big in gated communities and old-age homes.
Apparently "liveable" equates with predictability and calm. Sitting under a tree reading a book and sipping tea seems to be the epitome of "liveable."
"Big city buzz can hamper the scores of some cities," The Economist acknowledges. "Global centres such as New York, Tokyo, London, Hong Kong and Paris may find themselves let down precisely because of their size and attractiveness."
Paris, in fact, placed 22nd on the list. London was at 46, New York at 56.
So why, then, are all those cities bigger and more popular than all the liveable cities? And why do so many more people go there to live? One would think "liveable" should have something to do with the desire of people to live there. The Economist 10 may all be great places to make cuckoo clocks. But there's got to be more to life than that.
JasonParis
Moderator
salvius
Active Member
So, if the crime rate is low, infrastructure good, etc. it doesn't matter that unless you have bags of cash you'll be living homeless in this hypothetical great city?
DTGeek
Active Member
I'm guessing they don't take into account factors like the psychological effects of persistent dreary and miserable weather?
Granted, TO probably wouldn't be helped by such considerations either.
Granted, TO probably wouldn't be helped by such considerations either.
Lone Primate
Active Member
As opposed to what? Dodging bullets, watching planes fly into your buildings, and having your subways explode? F*ck, I'll take the tea, thanks. How about you guys?
BuildTO
Active Member
Yup - the Post writer doesn't specify exactly what it is that makes a city "exciting". It sounds very subjective to me - but then, that's the National Post. Toronto is "stagnant"? Sydney? I think not.
TrickyRicky
Senior Member
You could factor in cost of living as contibuting to liveability in a negative sense if you look at income disparity or perhaps housing costs relative to income but not absolute costs. High living and housing costs are driven by the desirability of a location and hence for the most part a city should strive towards such a scenerio. Vancouver or Coopenhagen or Geneva are hardly bastions of income inequality so I don't see how cost of living is particularly important. High cost may disuade people not from such cities from moving there but when we speak of liveability we speak of the situation for the residents already there. Growth potential and liveability are two separate issues. Infact I would suspect if you look on a global scale they may be inversely related. The least liveable cities with the lowest average quality of life are most likely to be growing the fastest, while growth in cities with high liveability and overall quality of life is likely to be slow or tepid at best.
Zephyr
Active Member
X is Yth most liveable city in the world!!!
Where do they come up with this questionable gibberish to fill up a newspaper? Does anyone agree with most of what is on these lists - regardless of how high your city may be placed on this list or one like it? What about Honolulu Hawaii or Charleston, South Carolina, or Paris, France or some town on the Grand Caymans? INSERT your favourite(s) here.
Seems like there are always cities missing, and cities that shouldn't be there at all.
Where do they come up with this questionable gibberish to fill up a newspaper? Does anyone agree with most of what is on these lists - regardless of how high your city may be placed on this list or one like it? What about Honolulu Hawaii or Charleston, South Carolina, or Paris, France or some town on the Grand Caymans? INSERT your favourite(s) here.
Seems like there are always cities missing, and cities that shouldn't be there at all.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
They need something to fill the ad space that went unsold.
M
MajorComplainer
Guest
I think the writer of this article is cuckoo herself. People don't move to NYC or HK to live. They move there cause of job opportunities.
lordmandeep
Banned
NYC is a great city but it has some quality of life issues.
Hipster Duck
Senior Member
I move to cities based on where I want to live and then find job opportunities there. Not to sound condescending or egotistical, but this is the difference between people who know what they want in life and people who are content to put themselves anywhere for the sake of [job] security. It is the collection of people with this sort of mindset that make cities like New York, Berlin, London, Paris, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Madrid, Los Angeles and, yes, Toronto exciting and popular places to live even if they rank low on a "liveability index".
If my impetus to move was simply to get a higher paying job, I'd be stuck in Meadowvale or Fort McMurray or some place like that.