Print
EmailCanada does well, placing four cities on the lists, with Vancouver topping the Economist's list, which also has Toronto (fourth) and Calgary (tied for fifth). Calgary?
The Monocle list: Zurich, Copenhagen, Tokyo, Munich, Helsinki, Stockholm, Vienna, Paris, Melbourne, Berlin, Honolulu, Madrid, Sydney, Vancouver (14th, down from 8th last year), Barcelona, Fukuoka, Oslo, Singapore, Montreal, Aukland, Amsterdam, Kyoto, Hamburg, Geneva, and Lisbon.
The Economist list: Vancouver, Vienna, Melbourne, Toronto, Perth, Calgary, Helsinki, Geneva, Sydney, and Zurich.
How this will factor in the current Seattle mayor's race could not be determined at this time.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Wed, Jul 15, 11:37 a.m. Inappropriate
well seattle certainly does not belong with some of its hideous stretches, some other stretches of course do. but overall, seattle will never make it. the disappearance of portland is a surprise. munich? you gotta be kidding. ditto, hamburg!
agree with vancouver! how about durban, south africa. but perhaps it has changed since i was there 35 years ago.
this whole list is entirely anglo oriented, it fails to include a single south american city, it is "hygienically" anglo! zurich is fine indeed, but deadly boring like all swiss clock cities! no chinese city?
how about a list of great FUNKY cities? The US lost it's only candidate with New Orleans some years ago. Rio, Calcutta, Colombo, Port Darwin! etc etc.
Posted Wed, Jul 15, 1:13 p.m. Inappropriate
This type of list is almost never qualitative. They simply measure statistics in a variety of areas. The criteria vary widely, which is why some lists favor places like Sammamish (buh?) and others places like Vancouver. Of course the closer you look the more BS the lists are, including the US-focused ones where we rate well.
Seattle tends to lose when the criteria factor things like days with measurable rainfall, crime (low in murders by US standards, but high in reported property crimes), and transit (fairly ok ridership by US standards, but not internationally, and hardly any trains). We do better in things like doctors per capita.
All of these lists (city comparisons in general) should be read for what they usually are: half-assed magazine reports, using information the writers rarely understand. Even "studies" by major organizations like Brookings tend to produce material so full of holes that it's useless. Seattle's own DSA, a couple years ago, had city comparisons on its website that, despite great detail, showed nothing other than the writer's complete unfamiliarity with the topic...
Posted Thu, Jul 16, 3:30 p.m. Inappropriate
As to being "most livable"- It all depends on what's important to you. In my case, it's a single-family home on my own lot in a good neighborhood. We've tried the multi route and hope to never again. JG