Longtime wmtc reader RobfromAlberta pointed out that, once again, Vancouver has been rated the world's most liveable city. From the CNN story:
Vancouver is the world's most desirable place to live, according to a new survey, while Papua New Guinea's Port Moresby is at the other end of the scale.ALPF supplied me with a link to the EIU itself, which goes into greater detail about how cities are ranked. About Canada and its neighbour to the south, it says:
The Canadian city, nestled on the Pacific coast, was one of four locations in that country to rank at the top of the Economist Intelligence Unit's livability survey, which looked at conditions in 127 cities.
The other top-ranking Canadian cities were Toronto, Calgary and Montreal.
Australia also fared well in the survey by the London-based group, with Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide and Sydney scoring high marks along with Vienna, Austria, and Geneva and Zurich in Switzerland.
The EIU study assessed nearly 40 indicators in five broad categories -- stability, healthcare, culture and environment, education and infrastructure.
With low crime, little threat from instability or terrorism and a highly developed infrastructure, Canada has the most liveable destinations in the world. With a rating of just 1% (as a result of a small threat from petty crime) Vancouver is the highest ranked city of all 127 surveyed. A further two Canadian cities (Montreal and Toronto) feature in the top five with ratings of just 3%. All 4 cities surveyed score well in all respects.So according to this ranking, three of the top five most liveable cities in the world are in Canada.
Although higher crime rates and a greater threat of terror puts US cities below those of Canada, US cities are still among the world's most liveable. Cleveland and Pittsburgh are the joint best scoring cities in the United States (7%), in joint 26th place in the global ranking. A lack of availability of recreational activities and certain infrastructural shortfalls put Lexington as the least liveable US city surveyed, in 56th place - although its rating of 13% is still low.
55 comments:
I like Toronto. I don't know if I'd choose to live there (unless I could live in the "beaches" or "Leaside"), but I love visiting.
I'm a little far from T.O. now though. Hopefully not for much longer. Growing up an hour from Toronto, I became accustomed to being close enough that I could visit anytime.
Hi LeafGirl77. Welcome to wmtc!
One interesting thing about this survey is that it was published by the same people who publish The Economist -- hardly a group of radical leftists -- and yet apparently felt that Canada's "socialist" programs (health care, education, etc) were more positive than the US's "capitalist" programs (low taxes, lack of corporate regulation)...
I think The Economist is the closest thing to truly objective reporting that I've ever seen. They're not at all knee-jerk conservative. Generally a very trustworthy news source.
One interesting thing about this survey is that it was published by the same people who publish The Economist -- hardly a group of radical leftists -- and yet apparently felt that Canada's "socialist" programs (health care, education, etc) were more positive than the US's "capitalist" programs (low taxes, lack of corporate regulation)...
Sorry James, that's not the criteria by which the Canadian cities came out ahead. From the EIU press release:
"Although higher crime rates and a greater threat of terror puts US cities below those of Canada, US cities are still among the world's most liveable."
Crime and the threat of terrorism, not health care and education were the deciding factors.
Thanks, Laura! This Certain New Jersey Resident has duly taken note.
Crime and the threat of terrorism, not health care and education were the deciding factors.
All four of those factors are among the criteria.
All four of those factors are among the criteria.
All four of those factors were among the overall criteria in the survey, yes, but social programs were not cited as the reason why Canadian cities rated higher than US cities. The UIM specifically mentioned crime and terrorism as the reasons why US cities scored lower.
It's also a factor of feeling secure where you live. Switzerland was right up there in that count too. :)
The UIM specifically mentioned crime and terrorism as the reasons why US cities scored lower.
Right. It actually says the "threat of terrorism", which is a slippery factor. Crime is obvious - there is a lot more of it in the US than in Canada. But there's really no way to measure the threat of terrorism, unlike health care or crime or other factors. Many of us believe that the US's foreign policy increases the risk of terrorism, both inside the US and elsewhere, but how would we accurately measure that? It's not really possible.
It's also a factor of feeling secure where you live.
That speaks to what I'm saying. If Americans don't feel secure, it's largely because their govt doesn't want them to. If TWOT propaganda would cease, Americans could feel a lot more secure.
L-g, I agree with you about this question of the threat of terrorism. With the possible exceptions of NYC, DC and LA, there is virtually no threat of terrorism whatsoever in the US. Is Pittsburgh under a greater threat of terrorism than Vancouver? Not a chance. I don't know how they weight each criteria, but the fact that they even include something so unquantifiable makes one wonder how relevent the results are. Of course, it looks good on the tourist brochures.
With the possible exceptions of NYC, DC and LA, there is virtually no threat of terrorism whatsoever in the US.
I agree, although the threat in those three cities alone might constitute something much greater than you'd find in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal.
And of course there's what happened in Oklahoma City - the home-grown variety. But how on earth would you factor that in?
but the fact that they even include something so unquantifiable makes one wonder how relevent the results are.
I agree.
Given that it's the Economist making the report, my guess is they don't factor cost of living into it.
Vancouver is a wonderful city ... great culture there ... though for it to be "livable" for this kid I'd have to be living there in a box.
Maybe when I write the Great Canadian Novel someday, I'll be able to live there full-time. Shoulda stayed in Economics, I guess, is the moral of this story - could be living there now. ;-)
ha ha, i knew a girl who grew up in Port Moresby. she knew how to handle a gun quite handily - as a young girl in a family grocers, she apparently routinely "returned fire". (yes, they have korean grocers in port moresby.)
now that she had been living in boston for a while, she did not wish to go back, needless to say.
I think The Economist is the closest thing to truly objective reporting that I've ever seen. They're not at all knee-jerk conservative. Generally a very trustworthy news source.
I agree. I pick up The Economist from time to time, and I'm always surprised just how much I agree with it. I would hardly think it was conservative, nor particularly socialistic. It just seems to lay it out plain.
All four of those factors were among the overall criteria in the survey, yes, but social programs were not cited as the reason why Canadian cities rated higher than US cities. The UIM specifically mentioned crime and terrorism as the reasons why US cities scored lower.
You disdain for the country shines through in everything. The point of the article wasn't about how Canadian cities were more liveable than US cities per se -- though that's the spin it's getting here, not surprisingly. It's about the overall liveability of cities worldwide. Our cities score high. While this is not a repudiation of US health care and education, it is certainly in no way a repudiation of ours, either. In the broadest possible sense, it's an endorsement: they work -- they contribute in a positive way to our standard of living. Were it otherwise, they'd indicate that.
The two people I know who have always read The Economist regularly are both very progressive. That's how I got introduced to it.
It's about the overall liveability of cities worldwide. Our cities score high.
That is truly how I meant this entry: that Canadian cities are considered very liveable. Nothing more, nothing less.
Surely many American cities are also very liveable when one thinks globally.
Maybe when I write the Great Canadian Novel someday, I'll be able to live there full-time.
From one writer to another, if you're contemplating writing a novel, plan on either the box or the less expensive city. Just don't plan on the novel making you rich.
Although I'll be sure to do my share by buying many copies.
Hi Emily0!
You disdain for the country shines through in everything. The point of the article wasn't about how Canadian cities were more liveable than US cities per se
You're chasing shadows, lp. You really need to relax. I was responding to James who made the comparison between Canada and the US, not me.
As a proud Vancouverite, I'm not above a little self-indulgent bragging about Vancouver placing 1st...
Vancouver is an amazing place to live, visit, and to work. We tend to get overlooked by many in Corporate Ontario, but it really is a different lifestyle on the West Coast...
To those who says it rains all the time, yes, it does - but we rarely get crippling snow storms or nearly the amount of smog... Drugs and homelessness are serious problems here, along with the petty crime associated with junkies attempting to get their fix.
However, despite not enjoying my time spent in Ontario, it is a beautiful place with much more going for it than most British Columbian's realize, including some of the most amazing opportunities for camping and hiking anywhere.
You're chasing shadows, lp. You really need to relax. I was responding to James who made the comparison between Canada and the US, not me.
I think you're the one who needs to relax, Rob. You have such a perverse dislike for your own country that you can't let the most trivial compliment paid it pass if you think it's in even the slightest way unwarranted. All James did was state the obvious... but because it was in the context of the States, you felt obliged to dump on it. He's not at all wrong in what he said. Canadian cities were judged, by people who don't live here, as -- generally speaking -- better places to live, life for life, than US cities. Okay, subjective; matter of opinion... but it's there, all the same. Now it doesn't all boil down to terrorists and crime; there's more to it than that: the article explicitly speaks of our "highly developed infrastructure". James is simply fleshing that out. One of the things you're always praising Americans for is their pride in their country. Why can't you manage to dig down deep and find that attribute in yourself if you find it so laudable, instead of denegrating Canada every single chance that comes along? It's one thing not to be cocky and arrogant -- I think we all agree on that -- but quite another to have such an inferiority complex you can't ever accept a compliment -- to the point of calling the judgement and objectivity of the EIU into question for doing so. Seriously, man... take a sec and examine your motivations.
Man, it's fun to watch you two go at it ... all we need is ring and some gloves, and we'd have a hell of a show ...
You have such a perverse dislike for your own country that you can't let the most trivial compliment paid it pass if you think it's in even the slightest way unwarranted. All James did was state the obvious
What I took exception to was the characterization that Canada's "socialist" programs were better than the US's "capitalist" programs. You have taken the US vs. Canada theme and run with it. I was arguing against socialism, not Canada, but you get so hysterical about anything I say that you no longer even know what I'm talking about.
Man, it's fun to watch you two go at it ... all we need is ring and some gloves, and we'd have a hell of a show ...
Personally, I've lost the enthusiasm for this death struggle, but lp has a way pulling me back in.
In this corner, wearing Orange trunks, carrying a copy of Das Kapital, we have Lone Primate...
keep in mind that Canada's "socialist" programs help contribute to the high level of infrastructure, and low levels of crime. When you reduce poverty, crime is reduced. That is a quality of life issue for all, rich and poor. Hey L Girl. How's tricks?
Hey LiamJ!
When you reduce poverty, crime is reduced.
Something the US just can't seem to grasp. Easier just to build more prisons.
You have taken the US vs. Canada theme and run with it.
If it weren't such a consistent theme with you, Rob, there'd be nothing to talk about. But I mean, we're at the point now where you call the objectivity of the organization offering the measurements into question because they dare to suggest the country you're living in just might be on the right track, at least relative to most of the other tracks out there. What's with that? If it's not about subordinating Canada, then where does that come from?
The change in the US due to the increased risk of terrorism is quite quantifiable, in many ways. People are not as free as they were, demonstrably. And not just in airports. Cases, laws, policies, the subversion of habeas corpus and standards of the treatment of prisoners; the responsibility of banks to track and report the financial activity of their clients to the US Treasury Department... these are real changes in people's lives that impact their standard of living -- the far more "real" flipside of the remote possibility of being blown up taking pictures of the Lincoln Memorial or Liberty Bell. But you combine them both -- the fear of being killed by terrorists at odds with US foreign policy, however remote the possiblity -- and discomfort with the Orwellian policies that have grown out of obeisance to that fear -- and you have something that makes life in the cities affected less attractive. There's nothing "irrelevant" about these issues.
keep in mind that Canada's "socialist" programs help contribute to the high level of infrastructure
Socialism has nothing to do with infrastructure. The old Soviet Union had loads of socialism, but not much infrastructure.
But I mean, we're at the point now where you call the objectivity of the organization offering the measurements
I said nothing about objectivity. I'm sure the EIU was completely objective in its application of its criteria. I simply question the validity of one of the criteria. I suggested that the threat of terrorism is not quantifiable, but I retract that. In fact, the threat of terrorism is quantifiable and it is negligible. The total number of Americans, both civilian and military, who have been killed by terrorist attacks in the last 20 years is less than that killed in auto accidents in one week (maybe even one day). Thus giving any weight at all to the threat of terrorism in this study is illegitimate.
Socialism has nothing to do with infrastructure.
Who builds the highways, sewers, and hospitals in your part of the country? Perhaps they're the largesse of the rich -- the equivalent of Carnegie Libraries -- in your part of Canada, but I can assure you, elsewhere, the vast majority of the infrastructure is socialistic in genesis and maintenance.
I suggested that the threat of terrorism is not quantifiable, but I retract that. In fact, the threat of terrorism is quantifiable and it is negligible.
I'd entirely agree. However, the ends to which the fear of it are being put by the US government at home and abroad are not. As stated previously, these have real ramifications for the liberty, mobility, and potentials of the lives of real people, every day.
However, the ends to which the fear of it are being put by the US government at home and abroad are not. As stated previously, these have real ramifications for the liberty, mobility, and potentials of the lives of real people, every day.
This is very true. I said the fear of terrorism is not quantifiable, but I wasn't thinking of it in these terms.
What Lone Primate says above re society being less free is very tangible evidence of what the fear of terrorism does. Fear of being spied upon, of the govt tracking your movement and purchases, security checkpoints everywhere, freedom of speech being curtailed, among other examples, are all from the govt playing the fear-of-terrorism card. In that sense, the differences in cities and cultures are very noticeable.
Allan registered at a temp agency recently; their offices are in a huge office building in downtown Toronto. When he came home, he remarked on how he just walked in the building and sauntered into the office. In NYC, you stop at the security desk, they call upstairs to check if you have business in the office, you get a pass, and your bag is searched or at least looked through.
I used to wander into various office buildings in NYC that I knew had great lobbies, with cool architecture or art, or public plazas. Can't do it anymore. Can't bring a backpack to Yankee Stadium. If you carry a backpack on the subway, you might be subject to search. They're all just minor changes, but there are a million of them, and they do add up.
Who builds the highways, sewers, and hospitals in your part of the country? Perhaps they're the largesse of the rich -- the equivalent of Carnegie Libraries -- in your part of Canada, but I can assure you, elsewhere, the vast majority of the infrastructure is socialistic in genesis and maintenance.
Ok, so by your definition, anything built by government is socialistic?
Ok, so by your definition, anything built by government is socialistic?
Unreservedly. I've always felt the limitation of the term to dialectic like "the means of production" to be twee on the part of the left and self-serving on the part of the right. It's rhetorical nonsense. Anything constructed by government as a function of society as a whole fits the bill for me. Building a highway? Socialism. Wading ashore in Normandy? Socialism. Going to moon? Socialism. The only difference in the process between us and communist countries is that private pockets get lined in our system. The ends and the actors are the same, however.
Fair enough. Of course, that means every country is socialist, so the distinction isn't very meaningful.
What Lone Primate says above re society being less free is very tangible evidence of what the fear of terrorism does. Fear of being spied upon, of the govt tracking your movement and purchases, security checkpoints everywhere, freedom of speech being curtailed, among other examples, are all from the govt playing the fear-of-terrorism card. In that sense, the differences in cities and cultures are very noticeable.
Yes. Terrorism per se is not the real issue here. It's control. It's maintaining the buzzwords of the Roman Republic while Caesar officially refuses the kingly crown. We've seen it before... notably with communism as the foe... but I don't think to this extreme. Technology has reached the point where you can bleed liberty white while retaining the illusion of a healthy complexion. I don't want to pretend this is impossible in Canada by any means... but I do, quite honestly, believe we have not gone down that road, or at least not as far. We're not driven by the same fears -- fears of terrorism, fears of loss of influence and hegemony, fears of economic diminishment at the hands of people overseas -- and I think that's been instrumental in the widening gap of perception between most Canadians and most Americans (at least, those Americans from whom Laura and Allan found themselves estranged enough to emigrate). I hope the gap isn't permanent and that the US will recover. But I want to stand firm on our side of the gap. We should not be the ones to move to close it, because to do so means surrendering more of our civil rights, our expectations and birthrights as Canadians, and those few things that even Rob would have to grudgingly admit are the foundation of our identity.
Fair enough. Of course, that means every country is socialist, so the distinction isn't very meaningful.
Ah, but for the purposes of our discussion, it is. James evoked our health care and educational systems, relative to the ones in the US. Both of these in Canada are widely more socially-funded than they are in the US. University tuitions here are much lower because the cost of them is partially defrayed by provincial governments. Consequently it's easier for lower-income Canadians to get a better education in the hopes that their natural abilities, wedded to that eduction, can promote upward social mobility. In the US, this often falls into the lap of charities... or not at all. So coming back full-circle, there's merit to James's point.
I think you're all reading way too much into a press release.
They don't say what the indicators that make up the broad categories of "stability; healthcare; culture and environment; education; and infrastructure".
Unless you purchase the full report, you don't really know the details of the rankings.
Rob: They mention terrorism and crime, but they don't give any details as two how Canada and the U.S. would have compared if those two factors were discounted. Maybe Canada would still have come out ahead.
LP and James: Likewise, we don't know the factors whether it was government programs or not that were deciding factors. I mean Tokyo's subways and trains are almost completely privately owned and operated, but would probably considered "excellent" infrastructure by the EIC.
"At October 06, 2005 10:08 AM, RobfromAlberta said...
Socialism has nothing to do with infrastructure. The old Soviet Union had loads of socialism, but not much infrastructure."
The basic facilities, services, and installations needed for the functioning of the community, such as transportation and communications systems, water and power lines, and public institutions including schools, post offices, and prisons.
interesting discussion on various health care models used in Canada, the UK, Germany, Singapore, Australia, and the U.S.
Kyle, this is interesting. I'm going to read it more carefully tomorrow. Something to stare at with my morning coffee.
Dear God, no, drink the coffee first. I'm up at 5:30 providing tech support for all you easterners, and I assure you, you'll need coffee in you before *yawn*....you...proceed...zzzzzz
I mean Tokyo's subways and trains are almost completely privately owned and operated, but would probably considered "excellent" infrastructure by the EIC.
So? In Canada, they're not. You don't need the report to know that, and the point is non sequitur. They mentioned our infrastructure, James equated it with government spending and planning, and so it is, QED.
So? In Canada, they're not. You don't need the report to know that, and the point is non sequitur
And I quote:
and yet apparently felt that Canada's "socialist" programs (health care, education, etc) were more positive than the US's "capitalist" programs (low taxes, lack of corporate regulation
Ignoring healthcare, things like roads and schools and stuff are "socialist" in the U.S. too.
My point is that this report wasn't a discussion on the merits of public vs private services, tax rates, or national priorites. The above quote was reading too much into it, which I think was Rob's original point. Although, Rob's counterpoint also sounded like it was reading too much into it, as though the U.S. cities would have ranked better if it weren't for so-called terrorism threats. Of course, you picked up on this and off it went into yet another fruitless debate. You and Rob should just let it drop, since these debates are falling into the standard internet-quality debates where everybody's yelling and noones listening.
Dear God, no, drink the coffee first. I'm up at 5:30 providing tech support for all you easterners, and I assure you, you'll need coffee in you before *yawn*....you...proceed...zzzzzz
"Interesting" might have been a poor choice of words.
You and Rob should just let it drop, since these debates are falling into the standard internet-quality debates where everybody's yelling and noones listening.
Kyle has a point. Without placing blame, I'd say we should all just keep an eye on this tendency, a sure way to ruin an otherwise friendly atmosphere.
I gave up playing blog police several months ago - I realize I never should have gone that route in the first place - but let's give over the needless sniping.
"Interesting" might have been a poor choice of words.
Well, I had to call it something. ;-)
Actually, I meant my own choice of words, where I said:
"...but it's interesting discussion..."
Oh! I thought you meant my comment re your post about the different health care systems. Oops. :)
Ignoring healthcare, things like roads and schools and stuff are "socialist" in the U.S. too.
Ignoring post-secondary schooling as well.
You and Rob should just let it drop, since these debates are falling into the standard internet-quality debates where everybody's yelling and noones listening.
You are, apparently. :) Or has Rob got you strapped to a chair à la A Clockwork Orange? Rob, you stop that right now! Kyle shouldn't be forced to read stuff that's so boring!
My point is that this report wasn't a discussion on the merits of public vs private services, tax rates, or national priorites. The above quote was reading too much into it, which I think was Rob's original point. Although, Rob's counterpoint also sounded like it was reading too much into it, as though the U.S. cities would have ranked better if it weren't for so-called terrorism threats. Of course, you picked up on this and off it went into yet another fruitless debate.
Kyle, I agree a lot of this is subjective... said so early on, in fact. But this is your take on it; it's not mine. I see the matter differently. You don't have to take issue with how Rob or I are hashing it out -- you're free to if you want to. But I take umbrage at your attempt to invoke closure, no matter how hand-in-glove. Rob's a big boy; if he wants to counter what I'm saying, he will. And you can read it or not read it as it suits you.
You are, apparently. :) Or has Rob got you strapped to a chair à la A Clockwork Orange? Rob, you stop that right now! Kyle shouldn't be forced to read stuff that's so boring!
But I take umbrage at your attempt to invoke closure, no matter how hand-in-glove.
As you wish. I won't stand in your way, but it is my opinion that you're debates with Rob are getting too combative and personal.
Off topic:
I wonder if Blogger would consider adding "edit" to their commenting engine. I wish I could correct my typos after I've hit "submit".
Although, Rob's counterpoint also sounded like it was reading too much into it, as though the U.S. cities would have ranked better if it weren't for so-called terrorism threats.
How could I interpret this:
higher crime rates and a greater threat of terror puts US cities below those of Canada
any other way?
it is my opinion that you're debates with Rob are getting too combative and personal.
That is my opinion too.
I wonder if Blogger would consider adding "edit" to their commenting engine. I wish I could correct my typos after I've hit "submit".
That would be a boon, wouldn't it. :)
it is my opinion that you're debates with Rob are getting too combative and personal.
That is my opinion too.
Mine as well.
We all wish for a comment editor...! But I'd settle for Blogger's photo editor to function properly on the first try.
Post a Comment