You can pour over livability studies all you want, but the reality of the situation is that every person is in a different life situation and opinions are often skewed depending on what part of the city people may live in. The Economist's 2011 Livability rankings puts Vancouver, BC on top of the pile of cities all over the world. No single US city even made the top 25. The Economist says "Vancouver (Canada) sits at the top of the Economist Intelligence Unit's Global Liveability Ranking, a position that can only have been cemented by the successful hosting of the 2010 winter Olympics and Paralympics, which provided a boost to the infrastructure, and culture and environment categories." This is pretty funny to me, because I only know one person who was truly proud of the Olympics hosted there in 2010 and not a single person who thought the cost was worth it.
The Economist's Livability Rating is based on 30 unique factors divided into a few categories: stability; healthcare; culture and environment; education; and infrastructure. Vancouver scored better than every other city on the list. How? Granted, this rating was calculated before the riots earlier this year and the impending teacher strikes, so stability might have escaped relatively unscathed. I'm not sure how healthcare in Vancouver compares to healthcare in Seattle for instance (but I hope to find out soon through conversation with a health professional there). I've never had any healthcare issues here in America, even though people bitch about this system non-stop. This is probably, because I'm young still! Vancouver's culture is definitely varied, but I don't know if that's good or bad. I can see both sides of the coin. Environment? Well, there's pollution everywhere. Vancouver is a fairly heavy industrial port city. Education, sure, Vancouver's got that covered for the most part. As far as infrastructure, though, I think that's Vancouver's bigger flaw. There is only one freeway which is constantly under construction. Traffic can be pretty atrocious during rush hour and the Skytrain doesn't transfer enough volume to be considered efficient. Biking? Forget about it, unless you have a death wish.
Additionally, when the Economist looked at Vancouver, they must have looked at Vancouver proper and not the surrounding suburbs. Sure, maybe if you can afford living downtown Vancouver, it's a pretty awesome experience - especially if you work there. But what if you live in Surrey, Delta or Richmond? Not exactly the epitome of fine living, is it? If the rating were to include the city and its suburbs, would Vancouver still fare as well as it does on the charts?
Let's leave Vancouver alone, and examine its Northwest cousin, Seattle. Here, I believe the story is reversed. Seattle proper is a dump, no argument. Sure, it's nice to visit every now and then - maybe hit a pub or enjoy the nightlife, but to live there? Hell no. Seattle is dirty, dangerous, roads suck and transportation is awful. However... once you exit Seattle and make your way across Lake Washington either by I-90 or I-520, you will find rich neighborhoods left and right with clean, maintained streets, parks, manicured lawns and modern buildings. Bellevue, Kirkland, Redmond, Sammamish and Woodinville are a complete inverse of Seattle (which is also reflected by price of property). A lot of the "niceness" on this side of the lake is thanks to giant contributions from Microsoft and Boeing. Redmond is basically owned by Microsoft.
So we have Vancouver, where Vancouver proper (and North) is great to live in, but the suburbs not so much. Then, we have Seattle proper which is terrible, and the Eastside which is terrific. Now, let's take a look at Warsaw.
Warsaw is a bustling city with mostly post-war and few modern buildings. There are no "suburbs" like we have in America and Canada. You either live in Warsaw, or you live in the boonies outside of Warsaw and it takes you an hour to get downtown, because the traffic is always awful. Granted, Warsaw's public transportation is amazing compared to both Vancouver and Seattle. However, apartments in Warsaw are for the most part tiny, parking spots are basically nonexistent and roads are absolutely terrible. There are no freeways, but there are several highway stretches downtown without lights. Real quick on the size of apartments... an average apartment in Warsaw is somewhere between 36-42 meters squared for a studio (that is a living room, kitchen and bathroom). 36 meters squared is 324 square feet, roughly. That's less than half of what I live in, and even twice 324 sq ft would be too little to fit all my stuff. Can you imagine living in 324 square feet? With your significant other? I can't (although I've seen it and it can work). We are so spoiled in North America, it's ridiculous. Oh, I should just throw this out there too while I'm at it; in Kentucky you can get a 3 bedroom apartment, 1300sq ft, for approximately what I pay for my 769sq ft apartment here. And that's still America!
But if you don't need to go downtown Warsaw and can, say, work from home... you can live in one of the rich neighborhoods outside the city where houses are so big (and much sturdier) that they make American architecture look like child's play. Standard of living there goes up dramatically. Once you no longer have to deal with Warsaw proper and can afford to live outside the city, you are living like a boss.
The moral of the story is: ratings don't mean shit. Vancouver may be #1, but if you live in Whalley, you're definitely not part of said rating. Seattle may not even be on the list, but I bet Redmond and Kirkland (and maybe Bellevue) would definitely find a spot near the top. I don't even know if Warsaw was on the plus list (doubt it), but again, suburbs have you living like a king if you can afford it.
I will always be looking to live in the best place possible. For me, that's where jobs are. I am fortunate enough to work at a company which is also located in one of the richest cities in the state (maybe even country? $66,300 median income in this county). Not sure where I could go to up my standard of living. Where do you want to go?
