Melbourne: The world's most liveable city

[Graeme]

Melbourne named world's most livable city in survey by the Economists Intelligence Unit for the fourth year in a row.

 

From the survey, Australia and Canada do pretty well

Most liveable cities:

1. Melbourne, Australia 97.5
2. Vienna, Austria 97.4
3. Vancouver, Canada 97.3
4. Toronto, Canada 97.2
5. Adelaide, Australia 96.6
6. Calgary, Canada 96.6
7. Sydney, Australia 96.1
8. Helsinki, Finland 96.0
9. Perth, Australia 95.9
10. Auckland, New Zealand 95.7

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Gene Splicer PHD]

Except for all the horrible BUGS that will kill me when I go to Australia

 

 

AND THEN THE SNAKES COME IN TO FINISH ME

[Bill W]

Congrats.  That is impressive.  

[Graeme]

Except for all the horrible BUGS that will kill me when I go to Australia

 

 

AND THEN THE SNAKES COME IN TO FINISH ME

Not many snakes or bugs in Melbourne. You have to watch out for the spiders in Sydney, but I think there's another thread for that

 

Congrats.  That is impressive.  

Actually, it's not as good as it sounds. Looking at the article, they don't include cost-of-living in their decision process, and Melbourne/Sydney are getting expensive to live in. But on the criteria they use (healthcare, education, stability, culture, environment, and infrastructure), yes, Melbourne does pretty well. In my opinion, the perfect score Melbourne got for infrastructure is questionable, so I'm guessing they're only looking at inner-Melbourne. The public transport infrastructure in outer-Melbourne is fairly poor.

[MikeL]

Not many snakes or bugs in Melbourne. You have to watch out for the spiders in Sydney, but I think there's another thread for that

 

Actually, it's not as good as it sounds. Looking at the article, they don't include cost-of-living in their decision process, and Melbourne/Sydney are getting expensive to live in. But on the criteria they use (healthcare, education, stability, culture, environment, and infrastructure), yes, Melbourne does pretty well. In my opinion, the perfect score Melbourne got for infrastructure is questionable, so I'm guessing they're only looking at inner-Melbourne. The public transport infrastructure in outer-Melbourne is fairly poor.

 

Healthcare is an important factor and having government provided/subsidized care can be a plus.  If tax burden was included in such rankings, the results might be noticeably different.

[Graeme]

Which criteria to use for determining "liveability" is very subjective. Rating financial factors can be tricky, because they can vary considerably depending on the circumstances of the individual, rather than the circumstances of the location (which is what this is trying to determine).

 

I think a generic 'cost-of-living' approach would be the best way forward, and to translate that into what percentage of the population can afford to live in that location. That eliminates all factors of income, tax, etc., whereby it's difficult to compare different countries. On that basis, inner Melbourne and inner Sydney would rate poorly, as most people in Australia would not be able to afford to live there (accommodation costs are very high). Apart from accommodation, though, the rest of cost-of-living expenses are fairly evenly spread across the major cities (it's more expensive in rural areas, mainly due to transportation costs, but not excessively so).

[Andy78]

The only city on that list I haven't been to is Melbourne

[TetRefine]

So you basically have to be a freezing cold or baking heat city to be ranked most livable? I don't buy it....

 

Also, "most livable" is very subjective. My parents couldn't fathom the idea of living in a large, crowded, noisy city yet I love it. I couldn't fathom the idea of ever again having to live in a quiet, boring, over-aged suburb yet it's great to them.

 

How can you rank something so subjective?

Edited August 20, 2014 by TetRefine

[Graeme]

So you basically have to be a freezing cold or baking heat city to be ranked most livable? I don't buy it....

Neither Sydney nor Auckland qualify as freezing cold or baking heat. Melbourne doesn't either, though I'll concede we got bad press in that respect during the Australian Open....

 

Also, "most livable" is very subjective. My parents couldn't fathom the idea of living in a large, crowded, noisy city yet I love it. I couldn't fathom the idea of ever again having to live in a quiet, boring, over-aged suburb yet it's great to them.

 

How can you rank something so subjective?

I agree, which is why I said above that the criteria for "liveability" is subjective. Based on the list of attributes they picked, though, I think they tried to be objective within each attribute.

 

I don't live in the city anymore -- I live out on the rural fringe of Melbourne. My wife said she would like to live either out in the countryside, or right in the heart of the city. She doesn't like the suburbs....

[Ashi]

I don't live in the city anymore -- I live out on the rural fringe of Melbourne. My wife said she would like to live either out in the countryside, or right in the heart of the city. She doesn't like the suburbs....

 

I think I might know what your wife is saying, but I don't think I could ever live in a country side, despite I like my quietness and uneventfulness.  And the last part is the reason why I won't like living in the country.  It's so boring in those places, people will create something out of nothing so they don't get bored.  And I loathe gossips.

 

I like burb better....  I have the choice to go to a city if I want to, without living in there and deal with the problems a city has....

 

Notice I mentioned nothing about financial situation.  I don't know why people like to link livability with money.  If you're with someone you love, does it matter where you live?  (okay, I won't live in a place that's like a pressure cooker or a walk-in freezer)