There is more to city life than convenience

Michael Skapinker:

In the view of two recent surveys, however, London is no place to live. Nor is New York. Tokyo perhaps passes muster. Shanghai? Forget about it.

The two surveys - one by Monocle magazine, the other by the Economist Intelligence Unit - rank cities for their "liveability". This sounds like a dreadful neologism, but the Oxford Shorter Dictionary is quite happy with it, defining liveable as "conducive to comfortable living".

Zurich is the world's most liveable city, declares Monocle. My colleague Tyler Brûlé, who is editor-in-chief of that excellent publication, writes that Zurich gets the wink for its "high-quality housing, impeccable public transport network, a refreshing lake at its core, a well-connected and user-friendly airport, cosy little cinemas, well-tended bars and diverse population". Copenhagen took second place. Neither London nor New York made the top 25.

Vancouver, 14th in the Monocle survey, won top spot in the Economist Intelligence Unit liveability table, which ranked cities for their stability, healthcare, culture, environment, education and infrastructure. Vienna came second, Melbourne third.

Tokyo came only 19th in the Economist table, well behind the third slot Monocle assigned it. But then, as readers of his Financial Times Weekend column know, Tokyo is a personal favourite of Tyler's. I have visited the city twice, and loved it too. But one FT letter writer declared it "traffic-snarled, polluted and architecturally challenged". That is the fun of these city rankings. They get people worked up