Just because a city ranks among the most livable in the world doesn’t make it any fun.
That’s the message of a new blog post on The Economist that dismisses some of the world’s nicest cities as, well, a little too nice.
The author, who goes by Gulliver, argues livability indexes that weigh crime levels, transportation efficiency and other criteria inevitably push pleasant but “mind-numbingly boring” cities like Vancouver and Geneva to the top.
“What right-minded person would rank Vienna a better city than Rio, or Vancouver preferable to Paris?” he wrote.
Gulliver, who comes from London, said he worries his home town and cities like New York are losing their sense of danger as they strive to become nicer places to live.
New York’s Meat Packing District, for example, was a more exhilarating place to be before gentrification pushed prostitutes and the looming threat of violent crime elsewhere, he argued. The same goes for London.
“The Tube is now far safer and more reliable than it ever was. Walking through the streets of Soho at midnight one isn’t constantly looking over one’s shoulder, worrying about who is following,” Gulliver wrote.
Fortunately, he adds, New York and London haven’t become as pleasant as Vancouver – yet.
The Economist’s annual livability ranking takes 30 factors into consideration. Apart from crime and ease of transportation, some of the criteria includes health care, culture, education and the environment.
The last report, released in August, listed Vancouver as the third-best place to live on the planet behind Vienna and Melbourne, which took the top spot for the fourth year in a row.
Have your say: Are cities like Vancouver and Vienna too nice for their own good?
