You've seen those wonkified lists of the world's "Most Liveable Cities" and perhaps secretly inner-cringed at how poor Vegas doesn't make the list time and again. Well, inner-cringe no more! Here's a counter-take on that journalistic genre that proposes that those cities that DO consistently make those coveted lists are Goldilocks burgs that are, well, kinda boooooring. From the Financial Times:
No. Not at all. In fact, Vancouver’s boringly consistent topping of the polls underlines the fundamental fault that lies at the heart of the idea of measuring cities by their “liveability”. The most recent surveys, from Monocle magazine, Forbes, Mercer and The Economist, concur: Vancouver, Vienna, Zurich, Geneva, Copenhagen and Munich dominate the top. What, you might ask, no New York? No London? No LA or HK? None of the cities that people seem to actually want to emigrate to, to set up businesses in? To be in? None of the wealthiest, flashiest, fastest or most beautiful cities? Nope. Americans in particular seem to get wound up by the lack of US cities in the top tier. The one that does make it is Pittsburgh. Which winds them up even more.
And finally! Somebody makes a jab at Copenhagen.
