The Economist has released a report that ranks Vancouver as the most livable city in the world, while Toronto The Good comes in at number five.
Above is the rankings, and below is the criteria they used.
With low crime, little threat from instability or terrorism and a highly developed transport and communications infrastructure, Canada and Australia are home to the most liveable destinations in the world. Four of the ten most liveable cities surveyed by the Economist Intelligence Unit are in Australia, and two of the top five are Canadian. Vancouver is the most attractive destination, with a liveability index of just 1.3% (see table).
While liveability considers factors of recreational and cultural activity, the “big city buzz” can hamper the scores of some cities, although not to the extent that a city will present significant challenges. Global centres such as New York, Tokyo, London, Hong Kong and Paris may find themselves let down precisely because of their size and attractiveness. Traffic congestion and higher crime rates associated with large urban centres have, to some extent, offset the obvious cultural gains of living in such locations. This has also been compounded by fears that large centres like London and New York will remain targets for high-profile terror attacks. Despite this, most major centres do not present any significant challenges to liveability.
Of the 132 cities surveyed, only nine cities present the worst-case scenario in which most aspects of living quality are severely restricted, reflecting general improvements on a global scale in areas such as education, health care and infrastructure. Four of these are in Asia, mainly South Asia. The other five are in Africa (accounting for three) and the Middle East (accounting for two).
The threat of terrorism and civil unrest is a major contributing factor to the cities that suffer from the worst liveability scores, as are poor development indicators. Algiers is the least liveable destination in the survey, with a score of 64.7%.
14 comments
If you feel badly about Toronto placing 5th, behind first-pace Vancouver, just imagine the gnashing of teeth that’s going on in Sydney! Beaten by Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide!
I’m not surprised that Toronto placed behind Vancouver, but am a little surprised that Vancouver came out on top. My perception was that they still had quite a drug problem to contend with…perhaps things are much improved since my last visit (admittedly some 3 or 4 years ago).
The drug problem is very visible, unlike in Eastern cities (Terminal City does it all in public) but it’s relatively isolated in the Downtown Eastside, and doesn’t affect the day-to-day lives of people not involved in it. I was amazed at how Gastown and Chinatown, a block either way from Main and Hastings, was like another world.
Vancouver: Mississauga with mountains and rain.
…and The Elbow Room. There’s nowhere in Mississauga with that much personality. Oh, and the big park…I don’t think they’re allowed to have parks in Mississauga.
5th place? I find that hard to believe. Now imagine if the city were properly funded, we didn’t have a wall of condos blocking the waterfront and our public transit was at the same level of quality and service as many European cities. We would be number one for sure…
I think the public transit and an improved waterfront would do the trick. It’s unlikely that those condos will fall down anytime soon, so we’ll have to fix the things we can.
I guess the Provincial government doesn’t recognize the value of having the most livable city in the world right here in Ontario. If they did, maybe they would want to spend a buck or two to get us there.
Oddly enough Vancouver has several “walls of condos” notably Yaletown along False Creek and Coal Harbour on Burrard Inlet. However, Vancouverites approach these “walls” from the other side. Both False Creek and Coal Harbour act as walls to block the city when one approaches either from the water. There are sections of the sea wall still open (the parts not through Stanley Park) where one can walk along the water without the candos blocking the view. Visit Toronto island more often and you’ll get a sense of this. Whereas that lake isn’t much to look at compared to any of the waters surrounding Vancouver.
Vancouver is deserving of first place as it is number one, at least in Canada. I’m more surprised Toronto even made the top 10. Where’s Montreal?
At least Vancouver has better transit, and a better bike lane system (there are even major intersections with cross walk buttons mounted at the curb for cyclists to change the light). Not to mention it’s cheaper to live there, including rent but not including actually buying property. Taxes are even lower than Ontario. And the civic government has great powers of taxation that they actually use, such as a per litre gas tax to pay for roads and transit.
As for the drug problem, there’s hardly a problem. I mean it’s quite easy to find what you need, unlike in Toronto. Hardly anyone tries to sell me pot in this city when I walk down the street.
I just want to know why 0 is good and 100 is bad in this report.
Because your typical Economist reader cares an awful lot about golf, Todd.
Everyone in Montreal just cancelled their subscriptions to the Economist.
“Everyone in Montreal just cancelled their subscriptions to the Economist.”
Seriously. How Toronto could be cited as more “liveable” than Montreal is more than bizarre. The criteria obviously doesn’t include “pleasureable to walk around.”
There’s more to it than walking around. MTL is a tougher place to live, for a variety of reasons (though “tougher” relative to toronto). Things like the subway not coming as often. And sidewalks that are falling apart and have holes in them. And Toronto is pleasurable to walk around in.
That’s the problem with statistics based rankings: you needn’t have actually lived in nor even visited the cities that you are ranking.
I suspect the Economist criteria differs substantially from my own (and I suspect Jilly’s and her seeing-eye dog’s as well).
I found the perfect solution to the less frequent métro service: I set my alarm 90 seconds earlier than I did in Toronto. The extra wait time is offset by the pleasantly-designed stations and the fact that the métro actually goes somewhere, not just up and across. I do miss the different- coloured bathroom tile style though, the beige is trà ¨s chic!