Frances Bula header image 2
← →

Vancouver now only No. 3 in the world — thank goodness

August 30th, 2011 · 17 Comments

Great flapping about the fact that Vancouver has dropped from the No 1 spot in the Economist Intelligence Unit’s rankings of global cities for the first time in nine years.

Follow-up questions to the Economist have revealed that the reason for Vancouver’s .7 lower score is traffic problems on the Malahat Highway. Yes, that one, on Vancouver Island. Sadly for the NPA, sniffing around for a good election grenade, it wasn’t because of traffic congestion caused by the Hornby bike lane.

Personally, I’m relieved. I’m so tired of people constantly droning on about Vancouver being No. 1, as though that was the clincher for all arguments. The No. 1 tag doesn’t impress those who are struggling with some of the city’s most significant problems: high housing costs, the mess in the Downtown Eastside, and a regional economy that hasn’t found its way yet.

I’m not particularly impressed with the Economist’s ranking criteria, either, which acknowledges that it tends to favour medium-sized cities with “low densities.” As I said on NW this morning, presumably that means that as the city and region get more dense — something that is a goal in local plans — it will drop even further.

Categories: Uncategorized

  • Paul T.

    And more follow-up questions showed that the analysts agreed they used a bad example, but that should not negate the fact that transportation infrastructure is being neglected.

    Also the question has to be raised, if the city concentrated more on the effective, common sense delivery of services, would other indicators have risen to counteract the decline in transportation?

  • RossK

    Before the fine folks at the Silly Caucausus get to it*…

    Here are the ‘Top 5’ reasons we are now No.3.

    ______
    *Assuming, of course, that they haven’t already.

    .

    .

  • Tiktaalik

    Semi re-post from Price Tags’ posting on the same topic:

    In addition to this Economist list, Vancouver has been steadily dropping in the annual Monocle list (not online) for the last three years and we’re now ranked 20/25.

    Although some aspects of Monocle’s liveability weighting may not exactly align to my opinion, their comments indicate a solid local knowledge. In previous years they’ve recommended adding better rail transport to Seattle and Portland and light rail throughout the valley. They’ve criticized the city for its high property values, for not “preserving grit” and for having a “lazy attitude toward contemporary architecture.”

    I find it bizarre that Vancouver does so well on the liveability list in light of the massive inequalities that Frances mentions. This year this oversight has become even more obvious, as Monocle considered San Francisco for the list (a wonderful city) but said it didn’t make the cut due to the fact that “it has yet to tackle its ingrained homelessness problem.” Really!

  • jesse

    Dropped from #3 based on the Malahat? Well it pains me to say it, if they can’t get that right, the fall from #1 is highly dubious… oh wait.

    Face it, Vancouver, you just don’t have “it” this time.

  • Rico

    Everyone has different criteria for what they would want in a ‘livable’ city. That is why lists like this are almost useless. Vancouver is a great city, but I doubt it would qualify as the most livable city for most. However just because there are other great places to live does not make Vancouver an undesirable city. It is still pretty damn good.

  • spartikus

    15 years ago, a regular cup of coffee set me back $6 US in Vienna, which in those days was $23 CDN.

    It was a nice cup of coffee, but I never ordered another one.

  • Bill Lee

    I would certainly agree with Vienna and Melbourne being better than Vancouver.
    They actually read and buy books in Melbourne.

    And they are semi-famous for their granny cottages, and their way-better National Art Gallery, which of course has “Vienna: Art & Design Klimt, Schiele, Hoffmann, Loos” as the current exhibition on the South Bank of the mighty Yarra River.

    But most cities in Australia have major water supply problems. (Vancouver has one of the worst sewage (non-) treatment systems in North America)

    And Vienna has been shrinking in population for decades. Remember when the two V’s (not Vision) were in a tie for top in 2005 in the same list?
    http://www.wien.gv.at/english/politics/statistics/

  • Tessa

    Also interesting to note: According to the Economist, Vancouver has better culture than Vienna. Somehow, I find it hard to believe, even if Mozart is dead. And seriously: when given the choice, who would choose Melbourne (or for that matter Vancouver) over, say, Paris, Tokyo, London or New York, assuming they were not from any of the cities and had the choice? Some people would certainly, but hardly a plurality.

    We really ought to stop caring so much about these.

  • rowbat

    I hope somewhere in its doubtless highly sophisticated analytical models The Economist did in fact realize that the Malahat is on Vancouver Island, not in Vancouver. It’s a bit difficult to understand how this could affect Vancouver’s livability – I can’t remember the last time anyone arrived late for work complaining of delays on the Malahat, but you never know. Maybe I’ll try it out on my boss next week.

  • Glissando Remmy

    The Thought of The Night

    “Vancouver was always Number One in the eyes of its citizens. Then, Robertson’s Gang came to town… and word spread around like low flush automatic toilets.”

    Greenest city on the planet by 2020. LMAO! The arrogance these people are showing is unbearable… The biggest bullshit perpetrated by any gang visiting this parts of the world actually… ever!
    Check for more:
    http://twitter.com/#!/glissandoremmy

    “Vancouver’s City Hall Is Trying To Push The Green 2020 Agenda On The Citizens Of #Vancouver The Same Way Nicolao Ceausesco Tried To Pay Off His Country’s Debt On The Backs Of His People, Not on His Corrupt Apparatchik Though! He Got The Message In The End.”

    We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

  • The Fourth Horseman

    We’re Number 3!!

    We’re Number 3!!!

    We’re Number 3!

    (*Tips cars, sets things on fire, dances around madly, steals stuff from stores. Then, goes on vacation*).

  • RossK

    OK.

    I was just joking around with that Top 5 thing at the top of the thread.

    Because I now know the real reason the Fourth Horseman is so happy.

    And it has more to do with swordplay than car tipping.

    Allegedly.

    .

  • The Fourth Horseman

    @Ross K.

    Dr Feel Good, baby! Welcome to the ‘Couve!

    (Geez, how old do you think I am?!?!)

  • Frank Ducote

    I think this thread could make a meaningful contribution to a discussion about “most livable city” if we generated a list of measurable criteria of our own.

    For starters, how about air and water supply and quality, safety (or murder and traffic collision rates for short), security (or burglaries for short), employment rates, equity (or % of women and minorities in positions of authority), addiction rates as well as treatment options, cost of living (income divided by expenses), education levels, transit and bike usage, cultural facilities (floor space per caita), amateur sports leagues, time distance to groceries, day care supply, etc., etc.

    (Note how there is nothing here about a winning sports team as a measure of livability. Vitality and commerce, maybe, but not livability per se.)

    I for one would like to know what others think are ways to think about urban livability.

  • Frances Bula

    Actually, Frank, there are those “quality of life” reports that are produced through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. The Vancouver Foundation also does a report card, I think. That’s more what you’re thinking of, although I don’t think they include all of the excellent criteria you suggest.

  • Bill Lee

    @Frank Ducote

    You could buy the report for only USD$3150
    or just the Vancouver portion for USD$265
    : store.eiu.com/product/455217630.html

    and for USD$5120 a set of Excel spreadsheets for such work : http://www.eiu.com/site_info.asp?info_name=The_Global_Liveability_Report&rf=0

    But, beware of the use of spreadsheets….. [ davegiles.blogspot.com/2011/08/beware-of-econometricians-bearing.html ]

    And read UVic econometricist Chris Auld on the fuss and other measures at http://quantecon.wordpress.com/2011/08/31/the-global-liveability-surveys-less-than-compelling-methods-and-an-alternative/

    and the Ablouy U.S. diagram.

  • Andy

    The Economist’s index is largely concerned with livability from a middle manager’s perspective so it never really withstood much scrutiny. But the Malahat goof up and asserting that Vancouver has more culture than Vienna show how skewed their views are in more stark terms.

    Frank’s criteria from comment 14 are much better. My bell weather criterion would be income distribution (as an index of inequality) as I think we’re starting to see that rear it’s head more and more these days.

    One useless stat to add to pro sports results as a false indicator given too much import would be the typically classless comment of Expressive Aphasic (#10).