Best Cities Ranking

[IanO]

Mexico City is one of the most phenomenal cities I've ever been to, had plenty of potable water anywhere we went (including into some second ring residential neighbourhoods) and while there was a significant amount of income disparity, there was still a very large middle class, a ton of wealth and a truly incredible city to explore.

 

[Yeggy]

Mexico City is one of the most phenomenal cities I've ever been to, had plenty of potable water anywhere we went (including into some second ring residential neighbourhoods) and while there was a significant amount of income disparity, there was still a very large middle class, a ton of wealth and a truly incredible city to explore.

I dont think you understand Mexico City’s water situation. Its core is sinking nearly a foot a year, some other areas are averaging 50cm a year.

Mexico City Is Sinking at an Alarming And Largely Unstoppable Rate, New Data Finds

Mexico City, the most populous metropolis in North America, has sunk too low for us to save it, according to new research. After centuries of water drainage from underground aquifers, the lake bed on which this city sits has grown increasingly dry,

www.sciencealert.com

All the things you say may be true now, but with them pumping some 40,000 Gallons of water a second from their under water aquafers, it wont be true for long.

Just facts friend, not racism or looking down on Mexico.

 

[erudyk_29]

Why are we trashing CDMX specifically about water scarcity. A massive chunk of global populations are experiencing significant water scarcity right now thanks to various factors including poor water management and infrastructure, overpopulation of arid regions for largely economic reasons and unsustainable agricultural practices, and obviously climate change. It seems weird to specifically pick Mexico City out of the pile. Looking in other regions, the entire Southwestern USA is way overpopulated for how much water it has, LA, Phoenix, Vegas, etc are all suffering from significant water shortages.

Water scarcity is a widespread issue that is occurring in many, many cities across the world in both the Global North and South. So I think it's a bit weird that you think "Mexico City can['t] be anything but near dead last". With that logic, LA should definitely be in the bottom half.

The unfortunate truth is that most of the world outside of the developed nations, where most of the world's population lives, a safe, potable, consistent water supply is not something that can be reliably counted upon. If I put every city that has water problems at the bottom, there would not be a single city outside of Europe, North America and Oceania in the top 100, which is not the goal of the survey. This becomes an especially silly exercise when you consider that many rural and indigenous communities within supposedly developed nations like Canada and the US also don't have a safe and reliable water supply. How can we hold poorer cities and countries to a standard we can't even meet ourselves?

Mexico City may be unique in having been built on top of a lake, meaning that whatever water it does pump sinks the city, but this should not automatically disqualify it from being considered a great city in my opinion. Most of the world struggles with getting enough water for its population. On top of that a lot of places have enough water, but the water itself is not safe to drink, should every city where you have to buy bottled water instead of drinking from the tap (i.e. most cities around the world) be excluded from consideration?

All that to say that we are extremely lucky to have safe, drinkable and reliably available water coming out of our taps. This is a privilege that is unique to highly developed nations and cities. This factor should be considered more as a "bonus" that cities like Edmonton have, rather than a knock on cities that don't. Just simply due to the rarity of it when looking at things in a global context.

 

[Yeggy]

^ That sure seems like it hit ya a bit in the feels.

Anyways.. I think it just shows how idiotic these lists are.

No city, be it Mexico City or Salt Lake City, should ever score high as livable or dynamic when it is completely unsustainably so.

I don't think anyone “trashed” anything. Nor do I see what small rural Indigenous communities have to do with a list of global cities. Also drinkable water is one thing having NO WATER is another. There is a lot of conflation happening.

Take care.

 

[Platinum107]

Alright, so I have added both EPI (Environmental Protection Index) to the metric, which measures things like air and water pollution and general environmental sustainability. I could not find data at the city level for this, so the lowest level was used (regional or national). I've also added rent as a percentage of income. A number of countries have also been added.

Here's the new top 60:

1. Vienna, Austria: 82.45625
2. Paris, France: 81.935
3. Zurich, Switzerland: 81.8425
4. Amsterdam, Netherlands: 79.933125
5. Copenhagen, Denmark: 79.235
6. The Hague, Netherlands: 79.208125
7. Oslo, Norway: 78.37875
8. Berlin, Germany: 78.098125
9. Barcelona, Spain: 77.279375
10. Melbourne, Australia: 76.75125
11. Valencia, Spain: 76.68
12. Tokyo, Japan: 76.146875
13. Osaka, Japan: 75.6175
14. Hamburg, Germany: 75.0225
15. Stockholm, Sweden: 74.98875
16. Munich, Germany: 74.875
17. Madrid, Spain: 74.825
18. Sao Paulo, Brazil: 74.619375
19. Milan, Italy: 74.6075
20. London, England: 74.59125
21. Rotterdam, Netherlands: 74.2525
22. Turin, Italy: 74.11375
23. Montreal, Canada: 73.858125
24. Manchester, England: 73.705625
25. Frankfurt, Germany: 73.3975
26. Helsinki, Finland: 73.2925
27. Bordeaux, France: 73.28875
28. Lisbon, Portugal: 73.0675
29. Nagoya, Japan: 73.00875
30. Lyon, France: 72.913125
31. Prague, Czechia: 72.76625
32. Seville, Spain: 72.741875
33. Singapore: 72.685625
34. Cologne, Germany: 72.684375
35. Sydney, Australia: 72.610625
36. Brisbane, Australia: 72.505
37. Gothenburg, Sweden: 72.430625
38. Vancouver, Canada: 72.189375
39. New York City, USA: 72.05875
40. Krakow, Poland: 72.05125
41. Zagreb, Croatia: 71.840625
42. Porto, Portugal: 71.68875
43. Sapporo, Japan: 71.665
44. Athens, Greece: 71.590625
45. Antwerp, Belgium: 71.44
46. San Francisco, USA: 71.4225
47. Toronto, Canada: 71.360625
48. Dusseldorf, Germany: 71.321875
49. Stuttgart, Germany: 71.271875
50. Nice, France: 71.234375
51. Warsaw, Poland: 71.234375
52. Seattle, USA: 71.02625
53. Washington, USA: 70.954375
54. Essen, Germany: 70.8475
55. Rome, Italy: 70.630625
56. Florence, Italy: 70.626875
57. Taipei, Taiwan: 70.43125
58. Tel Aviv, Israel: 70.275
59. Toulouse, France: 69.87125
60. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: 69.843125

Here are the bottom 30:

261. Benghazi, Libya: 33.960625
260. Lagos, Nigeria: 39.06625
259. Tripoli, Libya: 40.708125
258. Dakar, Senegal: 41.125
257. Mexicali, Mexico: 42.674375
256. Juarez, Mexico: 44.13875
255. Ahvaz, Iran: 45.508125
254. Birmingham, USA: 46.425625
253. Tijuana, Mexico: 46.738125
252. Sharjah, UAE: 47.92875
251. Cuernavaca, Mexico: 48.371875
250. Tabriz, Iran: 48.925625
249. Qom, Iran: 49.776875
248. Oklahoma City, USA: 49.84125
247. Cali, Colombia: 49.851875
246. Abu Dhabi, UAE: 50.001875
245. Dubai, UAE: 50.1075
244. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: 50.565625
243. Shiraz, Iran: 50.79875
242. Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania: 50.86125
241. Maceio, Brazil: 50.9475
240. Pretoria, South Africa: 51.7325
239. Karaj, Iran: 51.846875
238. Caracas, Venezuela: 51.916875
237. Gqeberha (Port Elizabeth), South Africa: 51.989375
236. Mombasa, Kenya: 52.066875
235. Inland Empire, USA: 52.118125
234. Culiacan, Mexico: 52.164375
233. Torreon, Mexico: 52.3475
232. Leon, Mexico: 52.384375
231. Goiania, Brazil: 52.55375
I'm currently in the process of adding the following countries:
- Russia
- Ireland
- Tunisia
- Bangladesh

I think Moscow, Dublin and Saint Petersburg all have a good shot of entering that exclusive top 60, but we'll see.

I've been holding off on the big 2 (India and China), but may need to get after that soon.

When it comes to Edmonton's placement, we now sit at 120th, with a score of 63.906875. Wedged between Baltimore and Mexico City.

Not me just casually using your list to pick where I want to live in the future

Great job man, the dedication is unreal especially if you actually manage to do India and China haha. How many metrics are being measured now?

 

[Platinum107]

^ That sure seems like it hit ya a bit in the feels.

Anyways.. I think it just shows how idiotic these lists are.

No city, be it Mexico City or Salt Lake City, should ever score high as livable or dynamic when it is completely unsustainably so.

I don't think anyone “trashed” anything. Nor do I see what small rural Indigenous communities have to do with a list of global cities. Also drinkable water is one thing having NO WATER is another. There is a lot of conflation happening.

Take care.

You're kind of being a jerk. He took the time to explain the reasoning behind the ranking and you respond by calling his list idiotic, and the only one being hit in the feels is you cause it's not that serious for everyone else.

Just take the list for what it is, a interesting experiment and attempt to rank what could be considered the most complicated, diverse and hard to categorize type of place on the planet, the city.

 

[archited]

Just take the list for what it is, a interesting experiment and attempt to rank what could be considered the most complicated, diverse and hard to categorize type of place on the planet, the city

I think you and @Yeggy just agreed.

 

[erudyk_29]

^ That sure seems like it hit ya a bit in the feels.

Anyways.. I think it just shows how idiotic these lists are.

No city, be it Mexico City or Salt Lake City, should ever score high as livable or dynamic when it is completely unsustainably so.

I don't think anyone “trashed” anything. Nor do I see what small rural Indigenous communities have to do with a list of global cities. Also drinkable water is one thing having NO WATER is another. There is a lot of conflation happening.

Take care.

I may have lost a bit of what I was trying to say there, so let me rephrase:

Point #1: Mexico City is far from unique in having issues providing a consistent, safe and potable source of water to its citizens. I feel it is unfair to say that it "can't be anywhere but close to last place", when you consider how widespread this issue is. It's a factor that is not the standard around the world, but rather a privilege afforded only to the most wealthy and most highly developed regions of the planet. It's not a realistic "standard" to have for cities worldwide.

Point #2: This is a point I didn't articulate very well, but essentially this concern is outside the scope of what I'm trying to find. Mexico's water shortage is a factor that is going to be a major concern soon. But as of right now, it does have enough water, future concerns are obviously important, but very hard to quantify. I can't predict the future, so who am I to say that Mexico won't be able to fix its water issues before it starts to run out. It's a pretty rainy place, rainier than Edmonton. If it can find a way to divert water sources from surrounding regions, it could fix its water problems. For another example, should Miami be dead last because current projections have it being essentially underwater in 50 years? Who am I to say Miami won't be able to build a system of locks, dams, etc that will sufficiently protect it from rising sea levels? It would be unfair to grade a city that way because I would be assuming something that hasn't happened yet will.

If the question I was asking was: What city should you move to in 50 years with climate change? These would be very important questions, but that's not what I'm trying to find out. If this was the question I was asking, then your assessment of Mexico being at the bottom, may be accurate, likewise Miami would also be near the bottom.

The truth is that right now, Mexico is a great city. It's got tons of culture, history and is a truly unique city on the world stage. Being essentially a Spanish Colonial City built literally on top of the Ancient Aztec capital of Tenochtitlan, with a bunch of Aztec ruins sticking up all over the place. It's a fascinating city, that is totally "it's own thing", there is not other city like it on earth. It has its challenges, just as every city does. It's ranked roughly middle of the pack, which I think is very fair all things considered.

 

[Platinum107]

I think you and @Yeggy just agreed.

Agreed that these lists are really hard to make? Sure.

But that's the thing with giving someone feedback on or asking questions about their hard work: On one hand, you can dish it out in a way that's discouraging and undermines their effort, potentially stopping them from sharing more of their work. On the other hand, you can give it in a way that assumes good intentions from the person in question, builds on each other's responses, and might lead to someone gaining more perspective on something they misunderstood/didn't know about. I'm not perfect, but I try my best to stick to the latter because that's what makes a healthy and safe environment to share one's thoughts and work. The answer isn't toxic positivity either, of course, but there's a healthy middle ground here which, in all honesty, I'm a little disappointed to see less and less of on this forum.

 

[archited]

Having actually lived in Europe (Zweibrücken, Deutchland und/et Paris, France) for 4-plus years and also having lived in 3 Canadian Cities (Edmonton, Ottawa, and North Vancouver) plus in a rural Canadian scene equidistant between Evesham and Senlac, Saskatchewan, and in the U.S. Cities of Palm Springs (2 years), Los Angeles (4 years), Rancho Palos Verdes (5 years), Redondo Beach (5 years), rural Arroyo Grande (5 years), Ojai (12 years), and now Tehachapi (1 year+ so far) I have armed myself with a ton of personal anecdotal evidence about the "Cities living experience". The difference between all of these places is "the difference between all of these places" ("vive la différence", comme on dit en français ) -- one should take the positive experiences from any living situation and understand in as complete a sense as possible how that suits the human experience. I have a fondness for Edmonton that outlasts all other places, but I don't see that as rationale for comparing it to the other places I have lived as detrimental to the experiences gained there -- I would not want to rank these places in comparison, one to the other, and I would not have wished to eliminate the experiences garnered in any one place over any others.