Top 10 best places to live... What can US Cities do to compete

[Sarcasticity]

Originally Posted by Jonesy55

I'm not sure what you mean, surely a 310m country should be able to successfully accommodate more newcomers than a 33m country, that's just common sense. Just as California should be able to accommodate more than Rhode Island.

The % Isaidso is talking about is relevant because it measures the impact a typical person is likely to notice from immigration.

100k new immigrants spread around China would probably not even be noticed, 100k new immigrants in Tonga would radically change the society so you need to look at the %.

Im not sure how you can say for sure the US can accomodate more? Its basically saying, China and India can accomodate more. Im pretty sure its easier to accomodate more people in a country with the lesser population. Resources, jobs etc are limited.

Thats why im saying the US shouldnt accomodate more. It can barely provide jobs to its own people. Never did I say that immigrants are having better prospects in the states.

[PadArch]

Originally Posted by Fitzrovian

You missed my point entirely, but that's okay.



How do you know? Okay, America's issues with healthcare are well-publicized, but what do you know about the quality of healthcare in Spain? Have you ever tried to get treatment there? Again, I'd like someone from Spain to give us an accurate view.

For what it's worth, there was a recent article in the NYT profiling a US couple who had moved to rural Catalonia. One of the things they raved about was the oustanding healthcare. Of course totally anecdotal, but I assume that if an American couple who was well off enough to move to Spain (and therefore probably used to more than adequate healthcare in the US) thought that the healthcare was outstanding in the rural part of Catalonia, it can not possibly be so *lacking*.

And that's my point. You guys keep playing up your safety, healthcare and public transit as if there was an abyss separating you from the rest of Europe. There isn't. Sorry to burst your bubble.

eh i didnt say it was bad in spain or italy, or even in america just said its better in some other places. you don't have to be bad to be slightly worse than the best.

[Fitzrovian]

Originally Posted by PadArch

LOL


compared to northern Europe, Austria or Switzerland, yes might be slightly lacking, except madrid which has great transport.. so is America. which is one reason why american, spanish and italian cities don't make it onto that top ten list.

I see you have edited your post. Sneaky. But I am glad you are coming around to my point of view.

"Except Madrid". Wrong. Barcelona has almost equally as good public transport and motorway network. As does Valencia.. And Bilbao and most other Spanish cities. (And same could probably be said of Italy)

My point is that on the "objective" factors, which are reflected in the survey, your advantages are marginal at best (and even that is highly debatable). Whereas on the so called "subjective" factors, which are not accounted in the survey but are equally as important for most people, the gaps are as wide as from here to Antarctica.

[Federicoft]

Originally Posted by Fitzrovian

(And same could probably be said of Italy)

Perhaps is 20 years.
At the moment when it comes to public transport it's true that Italian cities are lagging well behind other major European cities. The motorway and railway networks are pretty good, though.

[Adde]

Originally Posted by Fitzrovian

And that's my point. You guys keep playing up your safety, healthcare and public transit as if there was an abyss separating you from the rest of Europe. There isn't. Sorry to burst your bubble.

I don't think anybody's ever said that. Don't project something that's not there.

But there are reasons why certain northern European cities do very well on these lists over and over again - and that's down to statistics. You might not agree with what kind of statistics they look at, and might want them to take other things into account. But that's a completely different matter.

I grew up in Stockholm and lived in Rome for a while. Rome has got great health care, awsome culture and a pretty good (but not great) public transportation network. On the other hand, it's much dirtier than Stockholm, water/electricity/heating/internet/cellphone-infrastructure isn't as well developed, and its poorer neighborhoods are much poorer.

Which city has got the highest "quality of living"? It depends on who you are. If you're well to do, Rome is amazing. Great weather, beautiful, large and vibrant. If you're less well to do, Stockholm is better in terms of quality of housing, access to internet and basic infrastructure and lots of other aspects. If you're middle class it might pretty much be a wash.

[Adde]

Originally Posted by Fitzrovian

Whereas on the so called "subjective" factors, which are not accounted in the survey but are equally as important for most people, the gaps are as wide as from here to Antarctica.

Are you saying that there are "gaps as wide as from here to Antarctica" between southern European cities and norther European cities on subjective factors? What factors would that be? The only one I can think of where that would be even remotely true is weather.

[Fitzrovian]

Originally Posted by Federicoft

Madrid has probably the best and most comprehensive public transport system in the world.

Not to dig up an old fight, and I am glad to see there are some things we do agree on, but just the other day you opined that to compare Madrid with Paris or London "in whatever respect" is "out of touch with reality".

What happened, you changed your mind?

[Fitzrovian]

Originally Posted by Adde

I don't think anybody's ever said that. Don't project something that's not there.

But there are reasons why certain northern European cities do very well on these lists over and over again - and that's down to statistics. You might not agree with what kind of statistics they look at, and might want them to take other things into account. But that's a completely different matter.

I grew up in Stockholm and lived in Rome for a while. Rome has got great health care, awsome culture and a pretty good (but not great) public transportation network. On the other hand, it's much dirtier than Stockholm, water/electricity/heating/internet/cellphone-infrastructure isn't as well developed, and its poorer neighborhoods are much poorer.

Which city has got the highest "quality of living"? It depends on who you are. If you're well to do, Rome is amazing. Great weather, beautiful, large and vibrant. If you're less well to do, Stockholm is better in terms of quality of housing, access to internet and basic infrastructure and lots of other aspects. If you're middle class it might pretty much be a wash.

Ahh.... I think we are now getting to the root of the issue. Finally!

So: if you are poor, you wanna be in Scandinavia. If you are doing well, you want to be in Southern Europe (or pretty much anywhere else).

Can't disagree with that. Guess that explains why I prefer southern Europe (and Spain in particular) so much.

[Federicoft]

Originally Posted by Adde

I don't think anybody's ever said that. Don't project something that's not there.

But there are reasons why certain northern European cities do very well on these lists over and over again - and that's down to statistics. You might not agree with what kind of statistics they look at, and might want them to take other things into account. But that's a completely different matter.

I grew up in Stockholm and lived in Rome for a while. Rome has got great health care, awsome culture and a pretty good (but not great) public transportation network. On the other hand, it's much dirtier than Stockholm, water/electricity/heating/internet/cellphone-infrastructure isn't as well developed, and its poorer neighborhoods are much poorer.

Which city has got the highest "quality of living"? It depends on who you are. If you're well to do, Rome is amazing. Great weather, beautiful, large and vibrant. If you're less well to do, Stockholm is better in terms of quality of housing, access to internet and basic infrastructure and lots of other aspects. If you're middle class it might pretty much be a wash.

I very much agree with this. Life in Stockholm is quite probably more comfortable for less privileged people than in Rome, especially thanks to the extensive welfare system and more egalitarian society.
What do you mean by water, electricity, heating etc. infrastructure though? I really can't see any notable difference in those respects.

[earthJoker]

Originally Posted by Severiano

I am the opposite of many people here. I can only live in a place that's hot and humid year round. Singapore has the best weather IMO, but I am not too big a fan of the country. Maybe Natal Brazil, is a good city. Large enough to have fun, but on the beach and relaxing.

I didn't experienced Natal to be very humid. And there is always a chilling wind. But of I have to I admit it was winter when I was there.

[Federicoft]

Originally Posted by Fitzrovian

Not to dig up an old fight, and I am glad to see there are some things we do agree on, but just the other day you opined that to compare Madrid with Paris or London "in whatever respect" is "out of touch with reality".

What happened, you changed your mind?

No, I meant relative to its size of course.
London and Paris have larger networks, but they also are much larger.

[snowland]

Originally Posted by Federicoft

Madrid has probably the best and most comprehensive public transport system in the world.
As regards healthcare, the Italian healtcare was ranked 2nd best in the world by the WHO in 2000, and the Spanish one 7th best, both above any Northern European country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHO%27s...thcare_systems

OMG Now here Argentina ranked reeeeeeeally bad. Maybe cause it's from 2000, I don't think we have a bad healthcare system (of course, it's not great as in Spain or Italy).

[LtBk]

I think what hurts Rome is that it's hard to get things done do to inefficiency and/or massive bureaucracy of Italian society, but I could be wrong.

[Federicoft]

You're not.

[Jonesy55]

Originally Posted by LtBk

I think what hurts Rome is that it's hard to get things done do to inefficiency and/or massive bureaucracy of Italian society, but I could be wrong.

The central European / Scandi societies do tend to score much better there than Med Europe and that probably is a big factor for many people.

Med Europe has the potential to improve that though, while Finland will never improve its weather

[Fitzrovian]

Originally Posted by Federicoft

No, I meant relative to its size of course.
London and Paris have larger networks, but they also are much larger.

So just so I am clear, to compare Madrid to London on Metros (Madrid's 291km/289 stations in 600 sq km vs. London's 402 km/270 stations in 1600 sq km) or on motorway networks is "out of touch with reality" unless accounting for the size difference.

Correct? Just want to make sure I am clear on your position

PS: if anything I would think it would be "out of touch with reality" to compare them after accounting for the size difference. Then it just gets ugly for London.

[Sid Vicious]

best place to live is Berlin, but it is fortunately still a secret!

[Federicoft]

Originally Posted by Jonesy55

The central European / Scandi societies do tend to score much better there than Med Europe and that probably is a big factor for many people.

Med Europe has the potential to improve that though, while Finland will never improve its weather

Just wait for global warming to get its act together.

[snowland]

Originally Posted by Jonesy55

The central European / Scandi societies do tend to score much better there than Med Europe and that probably is a big factor for many people.

Med Europe has the potential to improve that though, while Finland will never improve its weather

I wouldn't say Med Europe cause in Spain there is no bureaucracy.

[LtBk]

Originally Posted by Federicoft

You're not.

It seems Italy, along with Greece are the more inefficient countries in Southern Europe.