Livable Cities

[Colonel Sun]

[Sennacherib]

[Apollonius]

You can cut costs in Vancouver by not demanding a place with a view. You won't really be able to see anything from your view property anyway since it will be raining and totally socked in almost all of the time and besides, you'll be working too much to do anything but sleep when you get home.

[Colonel Sun]

Always fun to read the "locals" opinions on such rankings.

Wonder why Canberra and Ottawa did not make the list? Both are park like. Too small? To reliant on govt employment?

Would like to visit Melbourne one day.

[Tinker]

I don't know what to think of such rankings. The Economist has an extreme bias toward the Upper-Middle Class and above. Their ability to empathize and comprehend the life of people who don't have a stake in the stock market is limited at best. So I am unsure about these types of rankings. Like the New York Times consistently over-estimating how much money it takes to live in Manhattan saying that to live in Manhattan one has to make like twice the median income of Manhattan. It's the same sort of bias, so I never really know how to look at it. Their idea of livable seems to be based upon an index of desires that apply mainly to the moderately wealthy.

[Sennacherib]

I think that's exactly right, Tinker. A lot of these surveys or studies amount to Fantasy Homes by the Sea on a lavish budget. "If you're wealthy enough to live comfortably anywhere you wish, where would you choose to live?"

It reminds me of the annual reports on the cost of raising a child to adulthood. They've proven for decades that middle-class people can't afford to have families, but they manage somehow. They may not have the flash car or be able to party the summer away on Ibiza, but they keep the kids fed, clothed, shod, educated and reasonably healthy.

Apollonius is correct on "view" properties, of course. And in Vancouver, using generic mildew removers rather than name brand products could save a fortune.

[Captain Murphy]

Ignoring for a moment the problem of the weather, Vancouver is a wonderful city. It's a cleaner, prettier, more walkable version of Seattle, nestled even closer to nature. Better Asian food, too. The best dumplings this side of the Pacific can be found in Richmond.

That said, I don't understand what drives Vancouver's economy. Seattle has the larger concentration of productive wealth. I hear that tourism and wealthy Chinese expats seem to play a big role in propping up Vancouver but surely that can't be it. For a city that lacks Microsoft, Boeing, Amazon, and the hundreds of high-tech firms that have clustered around these, it seems unusually prosperous.

[Captain Murphy]

[Colonel Sun]

[Tinker]

[noddy]

[Torchwood]

These lists amuse me. They are compiled purely on physical indicators of quality and living standards, and simply don't understand why people choose to live in happening places which are often raw, unfinished, a bit edgy.

Vienna is a case in point: it's slightly less catatonic than before the Iron Curtain came down, but the brain still died in 1914. It's very neat and the transport works great though, not like London. As for Helsinki - living with those chatty, exuberant happy-go-lucky Finns? In their wonderful climate?

[Mr. Perfect]

I have been to Vancouver and Seattle more times than I can count and I would choose Seattle over Vancouver 100 out of 100 times. Yes the weather is suicide inducing and what not, but Vancouver socially is incredibly boring. And the really good bits are out of town to the north and in the water. Which of course are very close. You can see bears practically 15-20 minutes from downtown. Seattle you need to drive at least an hour to get into the wilds.

[Apollonius]

I've had a love-hate relationship going with Vancouver for years.

For friendly people and beautiful architecture on the West Coast, Portland is the place to be.

Mr. Perfect, I agree with you, Vancouver has the coldest social climate of anyplace in North America, maybe the world. There is no architecture in Vancouver, only high-rises.



Seattle and Portland do have a terrible automobile problem. The depressing urban sprawl is perhaps the price you pay for not living in a little box in the sky with a lovely view of the mountains (on the day it's not raining).


They don't make anything in Vancouver. At least as I remember it (and I lived in the Portland area for a number of years), there is still lots of manufacturing going on there.

Vancouver makes its living off of tourists who come from places that are never photogenic, even on a nice day, and on parents who give in to the demands of their kids to send them on a ski holiday, while calling it an advanced education.

[Mr. Perfect]

Well Apollo I have to say that I was going easy, my complete feeling is that Vancouver is a place wherein the people there seem to have no reason to live and have no purpose in life. Makes for great hikes, boat rides, etc though.

Yes, Portland and Seattle (Democrat one party districts) have some of the worst traffic in North America, over the last 20 years they always seem to pick the most expensive and least efficient transportation options. Can not tell you why.

I have often heard people all over speak glowingly of the societal functioning of those areas (relatively prosperous, low crime, etc) but the downside is you have to live with people who walk around in a comatose state. But in fairness Seattle and Portland are not as bad as Vancouver. And honestly if you ever make to the region you will do yourself a great disservice if you do not visit Vancouver Island, that place is amazing.

[Apollonius]

Mr. Perfect,


My reason for living in Vancouver was to work and save enough money to get out.


I've lived all over B.C., including Vancouver Island and including some places that still don't even have a name. In fact, one of my biggest claims to fame is having actually having legally named a stream in this province. (I can't really claim to have discovered it; I was just the first to make enough note of it that it now appears on the map).



I still get to Vancouver on a sporadic basis, and enjoy being in the city for a night or two. The rating in the Economist might reflect that riot over losing the hockey game. The largest mass of people I ever saw on the streets there was during the gay parade about two or three years ago. I got downtown and thought I had taken the wrong boat and somehow ended up in Rio. All those smiling happy faces, hundreds of thousands of them.

Most of the time, most people in Vancouver are pretty glum. The weather is depressing. The cost of living is way above what most working people can afford without sacrificing a lot.

As a consolation, there's a lot of good pot. People tend to be literate (it's too damn wet and cold to go outside), or at least sexual: Books or bawdy houses, take your pick. Spenglerlites would hate it because it's a place where you turn away from tradition and invent yourself anew.

[Colonel Sun]

My impression, based on a drive through [Vancouver -> Banff] with some stops, was that the Okanagan Valley might be an attractive place to live.

I agree with Mr. P regarding Vancouver Island. Amazing. Definitely worth a visit.

[Sennacherib]

[Sennacherib]

[Ibrahim]