[Hipster Duck]

Global warming is just a theory, but I have yet to see any credible evidence to disprove it. So as far as I'm concerned global warming is very real. But global warming is very good for Canada so I'm all for it. In 100 years the US of A will be a hot desert and 90% of Canada will be a wonderful place with mild temperatures.

Wow.

Maybe you should think of the repercussions of climate change beyond just some sophomoric perspective of winter being a little warmer in Toronto.

Let's assume climate change happens according to your predictions. If the US becomes a hot, arid desert and there are 350 million, desperate, angry American climate refugees, do you think Canada will be in a better position than it is today?

 

[freshcutgrass]

BTW Toronto doesn't do all that well on Monocle's city rankings.

Tyler Brûlé, is an ex-pat who has always had the usual hate-on for Toronto (his mother lives here). That's why places like Montreal & Vancouver make the cut. Other than Portland, NA really isn't his cup of tea...Cities like Oslo, Helsinki & Hamburg are more his style.

 

[kkgg7]

And sure it would be nice to have the extensive subway systems of London, NYC, Tokyo, or Hong Kong, but remember that none of these cities usually make it onto the livability lists. When we compare our transit system to other livable cities like Vancouver, San Francisco, or Sydney, we look pretty good.

I agree with everything except the last paragraph.

Let's stop kidding ourselves with the "livability“ list. I would suggest ignoring any such lists in which Vancouver makes even the top 10, simply because such lists gives no consideration to extremely important factors such as opportunity of employment, salary level, price-wage ratio etc, as if money does not matter. Personally I would rather move to Los Angeles than Vancouver. A young person, unless inherited a large sum of money, has no future in places like Vancouver and can only find comfort in endlessly talking about the mountain and fresh fish.

So it is silly to selectively compare to Vancouver and San Francisco so that we can "look pretty good". Those are much smaller cities to start with. It is by looking up to truly world cities such as NYC, Paris and London that we see our weakness and start to do things to improve. In terms of "livability", those lists always dislike large dense cities and prefer medium sized one, does that mean people don't find NYC and London appealing? Not at all. If one decides to move to the US, will he be more likely to move to large metropolis such as New York or LA, or the highly "livable" cities claimed by some lists, such as Pittsburgh?

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Wow.

Maybe you should think of the repercussions of climate change beyond just some sophomoric perspective of winter being a little warmer in Toronto.

Let's assume climate change happens according to your predictions. If the US becomes a hot, arid desert and there are 350 million, desperate, angry American climate refugees, do you think Canada will be in a better position than it is today?

Good point. I don't hate American's, but I certainly don't want 350 million of them here! America can keep them!

 

[kkgg7]

Wow.

Maybe you should think of the repercussions of climate change beyond just some sophomoric perspective of winter being a little warmer in Toronto.

Let's assume climate change happens according to your predictions. If the US becomes a hot, arid desert and there are 350 million, desperate, angry American climate refugees, do you think Canada will be in a better position than it is today?

funny. what makes you think it will be a Canadian liability if the Americans have no where to live?? It is easy. we can do what they are doing to illegal Mexican immigrants by tightening border and deport thousands of Americans back home every day. Why is that even hard?

Plus, If Canada is livable, then the vast empty land in midwest US is too. Wyoming, Dakotas, Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin. They are big enough to hold 350 million.

You worry too much.

 

[andrewpmk]

For a city to be livable it needs to have reasonably priced housing e.g. a 1000 sq ft condo within 30 minute subway/commuter train ride of downtown in a decent neighbourhood for under $400000. Bay Area, Toronto, Paris one can buy condos in more outlying areas for this price. Vancouver is ridiculously expensive, you can pay way more this for new condos in Richmond. London, New York ditto, these are outrageously expensive cities to live in. London in particular has a serious shortage of housing due to greenbelt/height restrictions and most of the housing stock is old and needs repair. NYC one has to commute to Staten Island (1 hr each way) or the outer depths of New Jersey to afford a condo. Tokyo ditto, you have to commute a long way on overcrowded commuter trains to afford an apartment. Hong Kong is the most expensive real estate market in the world (it is not uncommon for entire families to live in 500sqft apartments).

 

[Silence&Motion]

It is by looking up to truly world cities such as NYC, Paris and London that we see our weakness and start to do things to improve. In terms of "livability", those lists always dislike large dense cities and prefer medium sized one, does that mean people don't find NYC and London appealing? Not at all. If one decides to move to the US, will he be more likely to move to large metropolis such as New York or LA, or the highly "livable" cities claimed by some lists, such as Pittsburgh?

Why do we need to "look up" to NYC and other "world cities"? Sure, we can learn a thing or two from them, but we can also learn from Portland or Vienna. Is your goal for Toronto to one day be a reproduction of NYC? Why not just move there? Toronto has some great things going for it that NYC doesn't have (cleaner air and water, cheaper housing, more equality, etc). As well, a lot of Americans leap at the opportunity to live in places like Madison or Santa Barbara over NYC.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Family Day yesterday. Mrs. RRR and the ratlings and I went for a walk on the Beach boardwalk, circled back on Queen to grab an Ed's scoop, headed home before the sun dipped below the horizon. All this after a pick up hockey game with some friends at lunchtime.

And I can still get to work by transit in 25 minutes.

That's why I love Toronto, and Toronto does well on best cities lists.

 

[ticky]

When we compare our transit system to other livable cities like Vancouver, San Francisco, or Sydney, we look pretty good.

Have you even ever been to San Fran or Sydney? The system here in Toronto pails in comparison to both those cities. For one, they have more than two subway lines in their downtown core, and secondly, they incorporate not just the individual city, but the surrounding areas.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

ticky:

An extensive subway system is not a good indicator for liveability - London, Paris, Tokyo, Moscow, New York aren't in the top 10. BTW, Sydney doesn't have a subway, and underground transit in SF is similarly deficient - perhaps even more so than Toronto.

AoD

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Have you even ever been to San Fran or Sydney? The system here in Toronto pails in comparison to both those cities. For one, they have more than two subway lines in their downtown core, and secondly, they incorporate not just the individual city, but the surrounding areas.

I agree with AoD -- I've never been to Sydney, but SF has a regional rail a la GO, but no decent LRT/subway system. Buses are OK in the core and they do have the Rice A Roni experience.

SF, at least the core, is highly walkable, though. You're better on your feet than most cities, as the core is quite compact.

 

[kkgg7]

ticky:

An extensive subway system is not a good indicator for liveability - London, Paris, Tokyo, Moscow, New York aren't in the top 10. BTW, Sydney doesn't have a subway, and underground transit in SF is similarly deficient - perhaps even more so than Toronto.

AoD

to be fair, all the livablity lists apparently all hate very large cities and always prefer mid sized ones, but it is precisely those large cities which have the best subway coverage. You can say extensive subways is not good indicator of high life quality, but I am sure without extensive subways life quality will be a lot less in these cities.

following the same logic, Toronto may not have top livability just because of more subways, but more subways definitely won't hurt and are more likely to improve it.

 

[freshcutgrass]

Have you even ever been to San Fran or Sydney? The system here in Toronto pails in comparison to both those cities. For one, they have more than two subway lines in their downtown core, and secondly, they incorporate not just the individual city, but the surrounding areas.

This is so not true, and I must assume you have used neither.

BART has only 44 stations, less ridership, less capacity, less rolling stock, does not integrate with the surface routes, fares up to $10.90, peak headways of 15 minutes and off-peak headways of 20 minutes, closed by midnight, aging rolling stock and has no Metropass equivalent (unlimited rides).

Sydney doesn't even have a subway, and has a "regional" public transit system because there is no municipal level of government. Sydney's heavy rail is a commuter rail system, because Sydney is very sprawled. Routes are not well integrated, and the "system" is a combination of public and privately run services.

Neither can even begin to compare with the TTC, which is probably the most well-integrated system in the world.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

kkgg:

to be fair, all the livablity lists apparently all hate very large cities and always prefer mid sized ones, but it is precisely those large cities which have the best subway coverage. You can say extensive subways is not good indicator of high life quality, but I am sure without extensive subways life quality will be a lot less in these cities.

following the same logic, Toronto may not have top livability just because of more subways, but more subways definitely won't hurt and are more likely to improve it.

You are committing a logical fallacy known as Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc, I believe.

AoD

 

[Dan416]

kkgg:



You are committing a logical fallacy known as Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc, I believe.

AoD

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