Another list by the Economist linked “intelligence unit” (EIU) ranks the 2024 “most liveable” cities in North and South America on an arbitrary scale of health care, culture and environment, stability, education and infrastructure.
Canada does well, with Calgary (1st), Vancouver (2nd), Toronto (3rd), Honolulu and Montréal (tied for 4th) topping the list. On a related global list for ex-pats, Calgary and Vancouver were in the top ten and Toronto was 12th.
Canadians themselves might moan about health care and infrastructure, think stability comes with boredom, or think the culture is taking its time becoming more sophisticated and global (though it is).
These lists make me count my blessings but also question the parameters they use. I personally benefitted from a strong education system but it is also easy to see how much many, many socioeconomic things could be much improved. These global lists tend to like Vienna and bigger cities in Scandinavia and Australia. One might think a better list would include jobs, prices, government efficiency and many other things.
They also don’t calculate average/median wages and cost of living very well, as you note. So Vancouver is “livable” if you make X amount of money to service the median house price of over $1 million and 1-bedroom apartment rent over $2,500 month
That list is ridiculous. Vancouver is a terrible place to live. And Calgary is not much different than other Canadian prairie cities, except it has higher housing costs. Crime, weather, etc. are not much different than Edmonton, Regina, Winnipeg, Saskatoon.
They’re great because if you live there, you’re rich, and if you’re rich, life is good.
Also, I choose not to live in a city, because not living in a city is move livable for what I value than living in a city is. No one seems to want to measure that, though.
That’s a good point. Whatever criteria they used to evaluate whatever “Toronto” means to them would probably yield quite different results if applied to some of the outlying suburbs.
With regard to Toronto in particular, in my experience, there are really at least three Torontos. There’s the downtown core, or “inner city”, and here Toronto shines compared to most American cities because it’s safe, livable, friendly, and abounds in amenities like theater, restaurants, and major league sports.
The other Toronto is former suburbs that have long become part of the city proper, like North York. Here you can avoid inner-city congestion and, depending on the neighbourhood, enjoy wide open spaces while still being very much in the city. When I lived in North York I could look out my window and see nothing but trees and forest, yet I could literally walk to the subway station and be in the downtown business district in 20 minutes.
The third Toronto is the more distant suburbs. Here is where you find small-town life, but within commuting distance of the Big Smoke, either by freeway or by commuter train. It’s a whole different experience and a different set of trade-offs from the other two. It works especially well for those who like that kind of environment but value access to the big-city amenities, but don’t have to regularly commute.
Sorry. The Economist changed their terms so gift links sometimes only apply to a single person. There are workarounds, but I do not want to violate my terms of service, so someone else would have to do it. Anticipating this problem, my current practice is to cross my fingers and post the same link twice. However, this type of article is widely duplicated.
The criteria used to create these lists are so variable (and notably non-transparent in their application) that I tend to discount them. Certainly, if you’re looking for a place to live/work/retire you can learn something about them, but a lot of individual research is mandatory.
For some reason I can’t figure, The Economist is down on the nearest city to me, where we often shop and eat out - Lexington, Kentucky. It’s not perfect (in-town traffic can be a bear), but it has the University of Kentucky and the cultural, sports and health advantages a big university brings, and the climate is quite tolerable. Not what I would expect to be named the worst U.S. city to live in in the Economist’s rankings.
Another livability list puts Sugar Land, Texas of all places high in its rankings. The place had horrible suburban sprawl when I used to pass through over 20 years ago, and commuter traffic to and from Houston was godawful. I can’t imagine it’s gotten better since then. Oh, and the heat and humidity are atrocious most of the year.
Livability lists have a tendency to single out relatively obscure communities, which bask in the attention for awhile and then disappear from the listings.
*another reason I distrust The Economist’s rankings is that they didn’t give a high ranking to Winnipeg, which aside from being The Gateway To The West, is privileged to have Earth’s 11th largest lake.
