Detroit beats Boston in livability ranking

[palindrome]

The 2011 Global Livability Rankings assessed each city based on 30 factors in five categories: stability, health care, education, infrastructure and culture and environment. Each city was then given an overall ranking of 0 to 100, with 100 being the most "ideal" city in the world for living.

Other U.S. cities joining Pittsburgh on the ranking's top-41 list are Washington, D.C., at No. 34; Chicago, Atlanta and Miami tied at No. 36; Detroit at No. 40; and Boston at No. 41.

Main article is about Pittsburgh, but couldn't help noticing the bolded. Thoughts?

I'm not trying to be a city booster, but instead, maybe someone could provide a context as to how the bolded cities outranked Boston based on those 5 categories. (I can't find the full report for free anywhere.)

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11053/1127102-53.stm#ixzz1EnixWlDV

 

[GW2500]

It's probably from the same people who said Malden is the BEST city to raise a family in.

 

[datadyne007]

It's absolutely absurd. As I noted in the other thread, DC doesn't belong up there either.

Boston:
"healthcare" - everyone here has it for goodness sakes! world-class hospitals
"infrastructure" - MBTA covers 1/3 of Mass
"education" - America's collegetown
"stability" - best chances of finding a job in the US (mentioned on the TODAY show to move to Boston if you need a job)
"environment" - historical, Boston Common, waterfront, Olmsted linear park system

 

[palindrome]

whoops, didn't even see this posted in the open thread. sorry mods.

 

[autunaeum]

The report costs $500 so we can't actually take a look, but I think there is some information to put it in context.

From the news article:

Differences between cities in North America are minimal and Pittsburgh's ranking can be attributed to a lower population than hubs like New York," according to a statement accompanying the release, adding that more populated cities often also have higher crime rates and overstretched infrastructure systems that could hurt their rankings.

Looks like either they didn't properly adjust the numbers or there's an inherent bias towards smaller cities. I guess the fact that Detroit is hemorrhaging population might be working in its favor?

From the description on the website:

The Liveability Ranking and Overview assesses living conditions in 140 cities around the world. A rating of relative comfort for 30 indicators is assigned across five broad categories: stability; healthcare; culture and environment; education; and infrastructure. The survey gives an overall rating of 0-100, where 1 is intolerable and 100 is ideal.

The key to this is what 30 indicators they used and how they weigh them. Just to pick one of the categories: how can you meaningfully boil education down a few numbers? Graduation rates or college enrollment? Performance on tests that aren't standardized across state lines?

People love super-indicators because they enable you to pretend there's an easy and objective way to deal with large amounts of often-conflicting data points, but as you remove nuance you also lose meaning.

 

[czsz]

These "rankings" are usually calibrated to achieve maximum surprise and, thus, sales/pageviews/ad clicks/whatever.

They also need to appeal to mass markets. That's why "OMG MY CITY OR SOME SHITTY MIDWESTERN PLACE JUST LIKE IT!!!" is usually thrown in the mix. Relatability.

 

[Lurker]

I think the "afforadability" ranking for housing unfairly helps decaying cities in these things. Sure one can buy a house for the cost of a VCR. But doesn't one wonder why the housing is so "affordable"? Maybe it's because THERE'S NO DEMAND FOR PEOPLE TO LIVE THERE!

 

[czsz]

^ True this. Probably the difference between rankings where Cincinnati and Dubuque do so well vs. those that always sing the praises of Zurich and Vancouver (or US "expensive but high QOL" equivalents like Portland, OR).

 

[erikyow]

Boston has traditionally ranked in the mid-30s (usually around 34) and third in the US (after Honolulu and San Francisco) on The Economist list. However, ever since the 2009 G20 summit in Pittsburgh, The Economist has had an absolute hard on for that place. They're constantly singing its praise.

That said, despite the fact that the Pittsburgh area is still losing population, they're really attempting to turn that ship around. They, unlike many other rust belt cities, realized that manufacturing isn't coming back and steel isn't going to be as robust as it used to be in a globalized world. So, they are trying to modernize the economy and base it on more knowledge than manufacturing and resources. And, from friends both from the area and those who have visited, it's a surprisingly nice little area.

Though, I'm not sure I'd rank it ahead of perennial favourites Honolulu, SF and Boston. Though Detroit, Atlanta and Miami are also slaps in the face.