[freshcutgrass]

The essence of what he's saying is not wrong.

Actually, I think it is.

These large cities don't rank at the top in these studies because of their extensive subway systems. In fact, it probably is what keeps them from ranking even lower. The weighting of the studies simply doesn't put enough points on subways. Also, as extensive as some of them are, they are still "small", compared to the amount of people who have to use them, resulting in extreme over-crowding.

Huge cities just don't score well across the board, because more manageable sized cities do a better job. Toronto is a bit of an anomaly in these studies, as it's a fairly big city compared to most of the others.

 

[SunriseChampion]

A good way to look at this question might be to think about what you like most about Toronto and then compare that to the condition of said ideal in other cities. Of course, this is supremely subjective......but I think, that on a planet with as many people as ours, it's a bit ridiculous to try and put out supposedly objective rankings of cities according to livability (a highly subjective idea itself). Just sayin'.

For example, what makes Toronto highly livable for me is probably so far off what most people consider desirable that these lists have almost no meaning for me. I look at them more as fun little stats tables from some global league of municipal dick-wagging.

 

[freshcutgrass]

For example, what makes Toronto highly livable for me is probably so far off what most people consider desirable that these lists have almost no meaning for me.

I don't see very much falling into that category. Climate affects rankings, and it's something beyond anybody's control. I can see people not being a fan of Toronto's climate, but that's all I can think of. I suppose some people prefer their own monoculture as opposed to Toronto's multicultural makeup, but I'm not sure that's a factor in any of the rankings.

Some of the things in the rankings is not necessarily of Toronto's doing....such as access to a certain quality of education or health care, which is federally or provincially mandated.

But many of the things would be universally considered desirable. Does anybody think low crime rates is a bad thing? I don't think so. Are stable governments or economies considered bad? No. Is an abundance of cultural and recreational services considered undesirable by anyone? I doubt it.

I agree there is a cretin amount of subjectivity involved, but not to the point of rendering it all meaningless as you imply.

 

[RC8]

A big part of the reason why Toronto 'dominates' these lists is because we really have next to no poverty. Many of my student friends live in the absolute cheapest available rentals in the city, and while it's far from ideal, it's not impossible to imagine someone carrying out a happy life 'in spite' of where they live.

I'm talking about the old City of Toronto, of course. People living in equivalent apartments in North York or Scarborough live an atrocious life by my standards (unless they drive), but even in Mississauga it isn't that bad. Here I've gone up to some of the poorest apartments in the city with no fear. In Miami, where I lived for a while, I wouldn't even drive near some of the worst neighbourhoods.

 

[SunriseChampion]

I don't see very much falling into that category. Climate affects rankings, and it's something beyond anybody's control. I can see people not being a fan of Toronto's climate, but that's all I can think of. I suppose some people prefer their own monoculture as opposed to Toronto's multicultural makeup, but I'm not sure that's a factor in any of the rankings.

Some of the things in the rankings is not necessarily of Toronto's doing....such as access to a certain quality of education or health care, which is federally or provincially mandated.

But many of the things would be universally considered desirable. Does anybody think low crime rates is a bad thing? I don't think so. Are stable governments or economies considered bad? No. Is an abundance of cultural and recreational services considered undesirable by anyone? I doubt it.

I agree there is a cretin amount of subjectivity involved, but not to the point of rendering it all meaningless as you imply.

What I meant by my comments was that it was mostly meaningless to me, personally. I was also saying that more people should look at it less as canon and more as a rough guideline....like the speed limit.

I understand there are certain things being looked at that are almost universally desirable, but these lists do tend to strike me as veering off into the abstract at times. Grain of salt and all.

I just don't think these lists should be taken too seriously.

I do have a question as to their practical purpose. I'm not sure they really have one. Do businesses looking to expand internationally consult such lists for ideas on where to locate? I doubt it. Do people look at these lists before deciding to take that job they were offered in city X? Also doubtful.

I understand that the top cities on these lists are doing something right but are they necessarily the pinnacles of what livability is for me? Or even what livability may be for the greatest number of people? I know they don't necessarily reflect what I consider to be an amazing place to live. And as I asked before: what is "livability"? Is it necessarily something one can measure using statistics or is it less dry than that? I tend to think you can't just divvy up numbers to present your case for why a place is more livable than the next.

For me, personally, a good (underground) nightlife, alleyways, and a decent waterfront on a big body of water are highly desirable.....air quality and affordability not so much. That's why I say that these lists are just about meaningless to me. Not one is going to take into consideration whether or not there's a nice beach in town or whether or not there's a dearth of places to go dance and drink at 5am.

 

[SunriseChampion]

A big part of the reason why Toronto 'dominates' these lists is because we really have next to no poverty.

I know we're not Detroit....but, you sure about this comment? Toronto has plenty of poverty as far as I can tell. You go on in your post to equate poverty with crime and public safety. Now, I know there might be a correlation sometimes between the two but they sure aren't the same thing.
I wholeheartedly agree with the rest of your post vis a vis feeling safe in even some of Toronto's grimiest neighbourhoods, but to say we have next to no poverty because of this is...well, untrue.

 

[RC8]

I know we're not Detroit....but, you sure about this comment? Toronto has plenty of poverty as far as I can tell. You go on in your post to equate poverty with crime and public safety. Now, I know there might be a correlation sometimes between the two but they sure aren't the same thing.
I wholeheartedly agree with the rest of your post vis a vis feeling safe in even some of Toronto's grimiest neighbourhoods, but to say we have next to no poverty because of this is...well, untrue.

I do not define poverty in terms of absolute income. The way I see it, even the financially poorest non-homeless Torontonian (in the old city of Toronto!) has more access to education, health, safety, and recreation, than the average poor person elsewhere.

A couple working full time on minimum wage make $2,870 per month. That's enough to rent a 2-bedroom condo, pay bills, and feed themselves and a child. Obviously they should probably opt not to spend all they earn in one go, and should look at older rental apartments to protect their future, but the fact they COULD (sort of) afford it is telling.

You will always have people that are worse off than others, and these people will always be 'the poor'. But when we are talking about multi-city multi-country studies, Toronto has next to no poverty: its poorest people tend to not make the 'poor' bracket of this large sample.

 

[Hipster Duck]

I do not define poverty in terms of absolute income. The way I see it, even the financially poorest non-homeless Torontonian (in the old city of Toronto!) has more access to education, health, safety, and recreation, than the average poor person elsewhere.

A couple working full time on minimum wage make $2,870 per month. That's enough to rent a 2-bedroom condo, pay bills, and feed themselves and a child. Obviously they should probably opt not to spend all they earn in one go, and should look at older rental apartments to protect their future, but the fact they COULD (sort of) afford it is telling.

- Most families with children below the poverty line consist of single earners, usually single mothers. Many have more than one child.

- Most minimum wage jobs do not guarantee 40 hours of steady employment every week. Not only does your example assume that there are two earners and one child, but that their combined earnings could only come from working 40 hours a week, every week.

- Households in "core need" of housing are defined as those that spend more than 30% of their income on housing; find me a 2 bedroom "condo" in the city that rents for $861/month.

Something tells me that you've never experienced poverty first hand in Toronto. If you did, you would realize that it is a shitty, disspiriting time in your life. And that's without having children to support.

 

[kkgg7]

- Most families with children below the poverty line consist of single earners, usually single mothers. Many have more than one child.

- Most minimum wage jobs do not guarantee 40 hours of steady employment every week. Not only does your example assume that there are two earners and one child, but that their combined earnings could only come from working 40 hours a week, every week.

- Households in "core need" of housing are defined as those that spend more than 30% of their income on housing; find me a 2 bedroom "condo" in the city that rents for $861/month.

Something tells me that you've never experienced poverty first hand in Toronto. If you did, you would realize that it is a shitty, disspiriting time in your life. And that's without having children to support.

have you thought about the fact that maybe a couple with one income earners making miniummum wage should NOT consider having more than 1 child in the first place, since they can't afford it?

 

[kkgg7]

A big part of the reason why Toronto 'dominates' these lists is because we really have next to no poverty. Many of my student friends live in the absolute cheapest available rentals in the city, and while it's far from ideal, it's not impossible to imagine someone carrying out a happy life 'in spite' of where they live.

Toronto may have less poverty, but that is only a concern for those who risk ever being under the poverty line. The vast majority of people probably care more about income earning potential, tax rate, affordablity than poverty rate. Unlike safety, climate etc, poverty rate is not a universal concern. It only affects a small percentage of people. When you are not one of them, you simply don't care much.

Does povety rate affect livability? to some extent yes, particularly for those who have low skills and low education. Will someone with a MBA or an advanced degree in engeering care about which city has higher poverty rate when considering livability? doubtful.

 

[vz64]

have you thought about the fact that maybe a couple with one income earners making miniummum wage should NOT consider having more than 1 child in the first place, since they can't afford it?

So, what is your solution? Forced sterilization? Applying "One Child Policy" for certain economical brackets? kkgg7, where did you grow up?

 

[pman]

So, what is your solution? Forced sterilization? Applying "One Child Policy" for certain economical brackets? kkgg7, where did you grow up?

I guess tracking down the fathers and forcing them to pay child support would be out of the question.

 

[kkgg7]

So, what is your solution? Forced sterilization? Applying "One Child Policy" for certain economical brackets? kkgg7, where did you grow up?

you are being riduculous.
people should have the right to reproduce as many offsprings as they want, but just not at the cost of other tax payers' money. The social benefit/taxation system first of all should not provide incentive for low income folks to have more children they can't afford to raise from a financial perspective. Everyone should be responsible for his own children (as well as retirement for that matter).

 

[vz64]

OK, but what is your solution? Repeating that "everyone should be responsible for his own children" will not change the reproductive preferences of the minimum wage earners... Personally, I don't mind at all contributing my tax dollar to the welfare of these families.

 

[RC8]

- Most families with children below the poverty line consist of single earners, usually single mothers. Many have more than one child.

- Most minimum wage jobs do not guarantee 40 hours of steady employment every week. Not only does your example assume that there are two earners and one child, but that their combined earnings could only come from working 40 hours a week, every week.

- Households in "core need" of housing are defined as those that spend more than 30% of their income on housing; find me a 2 bedroom "condo" in the city that rents for $861/month.

Something tells me that you've never experienced poverty first hand in Toronto. If you did, you would realize that it is a shitty, disspiriting time in your life. And that's without having children to support.

My gf and many friends have paid rents of $400 per room (often in 2 bedroom homes, so $800-900 per apartment) to live in old post-war townhouse complexes in the suburbs, basement apartments, or 60s apartments say at Dundas in Mississauga. Others have paid similar amounts to live in rooming homes in the Annex, etc. They have more often than not shared their building/unit/neighbourhood with older immigrants on or around minimum wage.

2 people on minimum wage would make around $2,500 a month. If only one of them can work and they have a child, it's not like there's no safety net whatsoever. I know people who live in TCHC housing and cooperatives, and I know that while it's difficult to get a unit, it is not impossible.

It is relatively 'shitty', but something tells me that you haven't experienced poverty first hand outside the developed world, or even in the US.

I've met so many cab-drivers who tell me their children are in college. Cab-drivers who use the same hospitals I do, and who aren't 100x more likely to get shot than I am. I'm not saying the poverty situation in Toronto can't be improved, but you take these things for granted.

In Miami when you meet a low-income person you know that they are most likely in huge amounts of debt, will go bankrupt eventually, suffer chronical health-problems they can't afford to treat, and live in dangerous segregated neighbourhoods with no amenities and where a car (which they often don't have) is an absolute necessity.