11 ms·

I honestly don't understand how "cities" like Adelaide, Auckland and Wellington keep making these lists of "most liveable cities". Their low populations mean t

by bedobi 5y ago

I honestly don't understand how "cities" like Adelaide, Auckland and Wellington keep making these lists of "most liveable cities". Their low populations mean they just don't have much of the things that make cities desirable. (like, lots of culture, lots of diversity, lots of options for dining and activities etc etc) Granted, that can make them comparatively pleasant and peaceful, with good access to outdoors and fresh air, but yeah, it's disingenuous to even include them in a comparison that includes Tokyo, London, New York, what have you. In case anyone thinks this is me being uncharitable, I currently live in Brisbane Australia, which is hardly a cosmopolitan global elite city either, so this isn't me throwing shade, I'm just saying.

ehnto 5y ago
It's a really hard thing to be objective about I think, the lists are never going to be particularly useful. There are definitely parts of Tokyo life that don't score well, like house pricing, size and type. The concrete jungle isn't for everyone either, there is an amicable amount of greenery but it's mostly concrete. The lists seem to bias toward those things you mentioned, family homes and access to nature, so I think they're targeting a really specific demographic with that. I'm big on urban wandering, dining out and social stuff but I can see why someone might retire in Adelaide instead of Tokyo if they want to relax their retirement away. I think I'd rather Tokyo, just because of the public transport. You'd be able to go anywhere even after you can't drive.
- throwaway2037 5y ago
  It is interesting you wrote <<house pricing>> when the post above specifically mentioned Adelaide, Auckland and Wellington. Compare Tokyo house price inflation in last 10+ years to those others. Tokyo is a steal by comparison. It is a myth that Tokyo is still crazy expensive like in the 1990s. And when publications like The Economist talk about housing prices, they are looking at how senior executives live in the center of the city. They are not looking at middle class housing, which is in abundance throughout most of the city.
  - ehnto 5y ago
    The other stereotype is that housing is very small by comparison to a city like Adelaide, is that not true still? For example in Adelaide, a 3 bedroom home with a garage, front yard and large back yard is pretty common. But mostly I see two story narrow townhouses, or small apartments in Tokyo.
brigandish 5y ago
I live in Osaka and I have no idea whatsoever how it made second on this list. I like things about Osaka, some a lot (though I do complain), and the people I've met here will always be in my heart, but second? I couldn't be sure it's even the second best city in Kansai. Worthless list.
ghaff 5y ago
Although they aren't "towns" (in Northeast US parlance), a lot of people want a large town or "city-lite" lifestyle. Walk to a market, hardware store, cafe, etc. Maybe some local low-level cultural events. But also low crime, low noise, not too crowded. And you can hop in a car and head off to relatively nearby nature of some sort. Many don't want to live in Manhattan which, while an extreme example, means really committing to the urban lifestyle. Doesn't mean you can't go somewhere else for a long weekend but it's not a trivial undertaking.
strikelaserclaw 5y ago
Auckland has over a million people
heresie-dabord 5y ago
> these lists of "most liveable cities". I think the problem is that the idea of habitability is not always clearly defined in facile compilations of locations. And the compromises and sunken-cost calculations are not always clear. Any good community, big or small, is healthy. Clean air, water, good food, waste management; sensible urban planning and shelter cost; access to nature, infrastructure, and health services; intellectual and cultural prospects such as libraries, bookstores, museums, music, galleries. A "city" as a market/marketplace is rarely very healthy. Some people might choose to trade health for money and prestige. These are personal choices, but do not scale well over time to a large population.

by bedobi 5y ago

ehnto 5y ago

It's a really hard thing to be objective about I think, the lists are never going to be particularly useful. There are definitely parts of Tokyo life that don't score well, like house pricing, size and type. The concrete jungle isn't for everyone either, there is an amicable amount of greenery but it's mostly concrete. The lists seem to bias toward those things you mentioned, family homes and access to nature, so I think they're targeting a really specific demographic with that. I'm big on urban wandering, dining out and social stuff but I can see why someone might retire in Adelaide instead of Tokyo if they want to relax their retirement away. I think I'd rather Tokyo, just because of the public transport. You'd be able to go anywhere even after you can't drive.

throwaway2037 5y ago
It is interesting you wrote <<house pricing>> when the post above specifically mentioned Adelaide, Auckland and Wellington. Compare Tokyo house price inflation in last 10+ years to those others. Tokyo is a steal by comparison. It is a myth that Tokyo is still crazy expensive like in the 1990s. And when publications like The Economist talk about housing prices, they are looking at how senior executives live in the center of the city. They are not looking at middle class housing, which is in abundance throughout most of the city.
- ehnto 5y ago
  The other stereotype is that housing is very small by comparison to a city like Adelaide, is that not true still? For example in Adelaide, a 3 bedroom home with a garage, front yard and large back yard is pretty common. But mostly I see two story narrow townhouses, or small apartments in Tokyo.

brigandish 5y ago

I live in Osaka and I have no idea whatsoever how it made second on this list. I like things about Osaka, some a lot (though I do complain), and the people I've met here will always be in my heart, but second? I couldn't be sure it's even the second best city in Kansai. Worthless list.

ghaff 5y ago

Although they aren't "towns" (in Northeast US parlance), a lot of people want a large town or "city-lite" lifestyle. Walk to a market, hardware store, cafe, etc. Maybe some local low-level cultural events. But also low crime, low noise, not too crowded. And you can hop in a car and head off to relatively nearby nature of some sort. Many don't want to live in Manhattan which, while an extreme example, means really committing to the urban lifestyle. Doesn't mean you can't go somewhere else for a long weekend but it's not a trivial undertaking.

strikelaserclaw 5y ago

Auckland has over a million people

heresie-dabord 5y ago

> these lists of "most liveable cities". I think the problem is that the idea of habitability is not always clearly defined in facile compilations of locations. And the compromises and sunken-cost calculations are not always clear. Any good community, big or small, is healthy. Clean air, water, good food, waste management; sensible urban planning and shelter cost; access to nature, infrastructure, and health services; intellectual and cultural prospects such as libraries, bookstores, museums, music, galleries. A "city" as a market/marketplace is rarely very healthy. Some people might choose to trade health for money and prestige. These are personal choices, but do not scale well over time to a large population.