LIVEABILITY

Ahh, something I've known all along. Despite the fact that others including Monocle, disagreed with this ranking, but it's still nice to see.

The Economist Intelligence Unit’s liveability rating quantifies the challenges that might be presented to an individual's lifestyle in 140 cities worldwide. Each city is assigned a score for over 30 qualitative and quantitative factors across five broad categories: stability, health care, culture and environment, education, and infrastructure. The categories are compiled and weighted to provide an overall rating of 1–100, where 1 is considered intolerable and 100 is considered ideal.





Many readers disagreed with this article and posted comments on the Economist's website. Some Vancouver residents felt the need to defend the city:

grailpuffin wrote:
June 14, 2009 15:52
"I could never rate Vancouver as No 1. Too cold, too bleak, too boring. All of its features are outside the city."
Vancouver annual rainfall: 1117.2mm (Sydney annual rainfall: 1217mm)
Vancouver is currently enjoying perfect summer weather in the mid 20's C.
The city's natural beauty and features includes Stanley Park, The Lionsgate Bridge, Capilano canyon, English Bay, Lynn Canyon, China Town, Gas Town, Grouse Mountain, all within Vancouver. There are parks, lovely neighborhoods, botanical gardens, over 2000 restaurants with a huge variety of ethnic choices, night life, every type of music, major music acts, 2 professional sports franchises, theatre, an aquarium. This only just scratches the surface of what's available to see and do in Vancouver.
Make no mistake. The Economist got it right.

My favorite responses were the ones like these, which were obviously from Vancouver residents who want to keep Van the treasure that it is.. not have it overwhelmed by the kind of people who can make cities unbearable. For now, given its size, Vancouver kind of remains our little secret..

fortune8 wrote:
June 19, 2009 3:57
Yes, yes, yes. To all of those who wrote less than positive comments about Vancouver. You are right.
Crime, high priced real estate and rain. It never stops. All those scenic images of the city? All photoshopped. Yeah. It's true. Good education, health care, parks? You don't need those. You really don't want to move there. It is not a nice place. Certainly The Economist got it wrong. Please stay away.

4 comments:

dpb said...

Everything you need to know about the validity (read: how much you'd actually like to live in any of these cities, objectively) of this is list is described by Calgary's 5th place tie.

Calgary? Fucking, really?

The urban world must be a pretty fucking awful place...

Kevin said...

yup, Vancouver has probably earned that #1 ranking.. it's got everything I could ever want: natural beauty, progressive politics, big-city amenities, etc, etc, etc..

but HOW THE FUCK can you afford to live there if you make less than $40,000 a year, minimum? and I mean live, like a life live: on your own, potentially buying, or least able to rent a one-bedroom in a desirable neighborhood.

Vancouver done got it fucked up in the value set. sure, I can go ride the seawall everyday, and that's a huge part of my quality of life standards. but why council et all let mega condo projects (the suites in which are generally owned en-masse by foreign entities who rarely ever rest a head there) dominate all the downtown real estate is beyond me.. I want to end up in Van, and I pray things will sort themselves out a bit for the less endowed post-Olympics. but until then, I'll leave it to the rich.

Veronicahhh said...

yes- real estate in Vancouver has gone beserk, the most blatant omission in this ranking being the price of real estate (isn't that crucial to determining the cost of living)?
However, good places (affordable ones) are to be found.. and are worth the extra % of your income.

magdalyn said...

i cant believe toronto is no.4!