This is a ranking of the most livable cities in a world. Here's the top ten:
1. Vienna
2. Zurich
3. Vancouver
3. Munich
3. Auckland
6. Dusseldorf
7. Frankfurt
8. Copenhagen
9. Geneva
10. Basel
USA performs really poorly on this list among Western nations. The first city to show up is all the way down at 34, with San Franciso apparently being the most livable American city. What can this country do to make its cities comparable with the rest of the first world?
mobilityexchange.mercer.com
Disband them and spread the people out to elsewhere? cities are inherently unlivable. I can't imagine why anyone would want to live packed in like sardines.
That list is fucking BS since Tokyo is #49 worse than literal dumps
having said that unironically deport spics and niggers
>bunch of places with populations sub 3 million
Gee I wonder.
You serious bro? I mean, I'm from a rural town in the mountains originally and I loved living there but cities are the hubs of civilization. They are where the world happens.
lmao OP is that right? LA is expensive enough to live in but SF is retarded
>Vancouver
literally are you raterded user? Van is the most expensive shithole ever. Literal chinese money launderers buying up everything and building condos 100sqft per room everywhere designed for soulless bugmen and basedboys.
I would rather at this point give BC to china
Yes, I'm serious. If you can't crank your subwoofer up to 11, or use power tools, or plink things with a rifle, without bothering the neighbors, then your neighbors are way too close to you. Sharing a wall with someone else (and possibly two walls and a floor and a ceiling) is a fucking inhuman way to live. I'm not a fucking battery hen.
>They are where da world happens.
To each their own I guess. They both have their benefits.
What factors are considered?
Biggest issue to me is the price of rent in cities. It's far cheaper, quieter, and safer the further out you go from a city center.
I can't see a way for US cities to improve in any way with the way our society and market works
if you're gonna live near other people than you can have cheap or safe but not both. the types of people who make a neighborhood unsafe will naturally flow to cheaper areas, because they're the ones without enough wealth to have a stake in society being a decent place.
(just giving them the wealth doesn't tend to fix this, by the way, they have to earn it themselves to value it.)
>San Francisco
>Livable
Fucking kek. That city is ungodly expensive.
Not sure what factors they're looking at, but American cities are not, as a general rule, very livable.
Our urban planning regimes have, by and large, tended to the construction of automobile-centric infrastructures. Since land is cheap in the United States, we can build bigger houses; and because our culture values independence, we can create spatially segregated communities.
From the 1960s onward, those factors, combined with others, led to the creation of suburban satellites surrounding traditional urban cores. Oftentimes the suburbs became more affluent than the urban, with wealth migrating and clustering into distinct regions and locales.
Also consider how urban planning regimes and zoning ordinances affect the character and make-up of cities. We have suburbs, strip malls and standalone big-box stores. Since America is averse to mixed-use zoning, there's usually a degree of separation between where people live, where they work and where they shop or eat out.
(these same sorts of ordinances are the cause of pic related: standalone businesses creating oceans of asphalt, with more space dedicated to parking than actual shopping centers)
Consequently, many Americans have to own cars. They cannot walk to school, bicycle to the office or take a bus to another town. They're increasingly detached from their neighbors and lack meaningful social interaction outside of educational and commercial contexts. If you live in a suburb, you may not have a sidewalk; and if you do, there's a not-insignificant chance it ends before ever reaching anywhere noteworthy.
Also consider that many small- to mid-sized American towns and cities are dominated by chain restaurants and chain stores. We don't have pedestrian streets and bicycle-only lanes have only recently begun to be introduced in mayn places.
1.) Our cities were modeled after having a car. That's the main complaint Europoors have is that our public transport is shit, which it is, but that was by design because they wanted to make the automobile industry king. Our cities are designed around highways brought about by white flight to newly developed suburbs. But, all those cars in a compact space, even with 4 lane wide highways, causes massive congestion so we have traffic out the ass.
2.)Our cities are expensive as fuck compared to the average income of the average resident. It fucking sucks working 50+ hours a week and never being able to afford a home unless you move to some middle of nowhere hick town, but then when you do that, the jobs are scarce as fuck.
Side note, I fucking hate working 5 days a week and would rather do 4 10 hour shifts
having lived in some places where I knew my neighbors, I can confidently say I don't ever desire to know my neighbors ever again, or to live in a place designed to encourage that sort of thing. Your house should be your refuge, a place away from others, not a place that, along with everywhere else, pushes you into interaction with others.
If the density is too high to make that spread-out, car-centric model feasible, then the density is too high period.
"Having to know your neighbors" isn't the primary problem.
>Auckland
originallo
Big cities are dangerous, expensive, culturally degenerate cesspools.
Just move.
I'm skeptical of the criteria they used. I live in San Francisco, and while it's a city that I like a lot, it has a lot of serious problems. I wouldn't consider it America's most livable city. Perhaps most livable for people with six figure salaries and no children.
The fact that this list ranks San Francisco as the most liveable American city makes me think their criteria is total crap. Also a lot of these cities are insanely expensive. I'd much rather live in an inexpensive city near some beautiful landscapes
Eliminate ALL peoples of colour.
I'm American and currently live in Zurich and also lived in Basel. I've also been to most of the cities in that list. Biggest difference with the USA is public transportation and the related trait of population density. And next is probably food quality (groceries)
Having to drive everywhere in the USA is a huge drag. It's depressing. And it makes American cities esthetically unpleasant, with traffic and cars parked everywhere. There is no beauty.
And seeing the shitty quality of food at American grocery stores is another source of depression. Even Whole Foods is worse than mainstream plebe level grocery stores here.
I guess third is being around Americans is depressing. They are willfully and proudfully ignorant.
none of the other stuff you cited in your previous post is something I'd call a bad thing.
>our culture values independence, we can create spatially segregated communities.
good!
>there's usually a degree of separation between where people live, where they work and where they shop or eat out.
Also good! Why wouldn't you want your social interactions to be on your terms? Why wouldn't you want your home to be isolated from them, so that you can more easily pick and choose what kind of environment (physical or social) you enter when you leave the house?
>pic related: standalone businesses creating oceans of asphalt, with more space dedicated to parking than actual shopping centers
So what? You say it like it's a bad thing.
>They cannot walk to school, bicycle to the office or take a bus to another town.
Again, big deal. Even when people have these options available, they tend to choose private cars unless you beat them very hard into choosing transit or bikes. That should tell you something.
>They're increasingly detached from their neighbors and lack meaningful social interaction outside of educational and commercial contexts
Why shouldn't people be able to choose for themselves which social contexts they want to take part in and which to avoid? As opposed to being forced into them by overcrowding, like it or not?
>If you live in a suburb, you may not have a sidewalk
>We don't have pedestrian streets and bicycle-only lanes
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Move to a obscure mid western town, nigga.
no way any of these cities have low rent.
>Vancouver
I've been living here for my entire life, sure it's pretty but god damn is it expensive to live a normal life here. You basically have to be rich or else you're fucked with splitting a 2person apartment between 5 people.
I'm not sure why sprawl necessarily makes a place "unlivable." San Francisco, arising on the tip of a peninsula, is physically constrained and so is planned more analogously to some European cities. I'm guessing that's one reason why it is deemed America's most livable city. It's very dense and has robust public transport. But it seems strange to consider those things to be the be all end all measure of livability.
San Francisco is also an extraordinarily expense place to live, it has a very significant problem with property crime, and it suffers from a shocking degree of social problems. I think America's heartland is filled with medium sized cities that, while requiring cars, are much more accommodating and livable for the average family.
remove niggers from every city
doing the opposite and forcing people out of rural areas would be better. theirs no jobs out in the boonies.
A lot of these rural communities continue to exist as zombie towns because of welfare dollars. But I don't necessarily conclude that their few remaining residents would be any better off moving to cities. The divergence in fortunes between America's cities and its rural areas has manifested along geographic lines, but it isn't really caused by geography. It's about the end of unskilled labor in this country. The prospects for unskilled workers aren't much better in the cities. It's often a choice between SSDI in your home town or a demeaning service job in the city that pays no more than you currently collect.
there's no reason - other than the fearfulness and incompetence that is endemic among middle-managers - that 90%+ of office jobs can't be done remotely.
I used to work at one of them, actually. I was in an office in a city, one of the people on my team was in rural Montana somewhere.
mass immigration and like 3 city's to share
Because thats where all the jobs are, brainlet.