Rankings suggest that there is an objective truth that can be determined through empirical observation and measurement, but the reality is that many, if not most, of the factors – social, economic, cultural – that make a city ‘attractive’ or whatever are not easily quantifiable and extremely difficult to capture with any one set of metrics, no matter how good these might be.Īdded to this is the fact that the criteria and indicators used are often arbitrary and narrow and that the varying perceptions, perspectives and experiences of city dwellers are typically given only partial consideration. Cities for one are complex systems that cannot be reduced to a simple set of criteria or indicators. The problems with city rankings are manifold. Hundreds of them exist, rating cities’ less tangible metrics such as overall “attractiveness” or such things as their prosperity, creativity, coolness, resilience, quality of life or appeal as tourist destinations, as opposed to solid data such as population, GDP or green credentials. In today’s world where everything and everyone is increasingly ranked and rated – from hotels and restaurants to universities – it’s no surprise that city rankings have become increasingly common. (Photo by Mike Kemp/In Pictures via Getty Images) Judging the ‘best’ anything can be subjective, especially when it comes to cities.
That is at least what the recently published ‘ Top 100 European cities to live, work and invest‘ ranking claims, in which the British capital came first, ahead of Paris, Amsterdam and Barcelona. It’s official: despite Brexit issues and the cost of living crisis, not to mention the by-now-commonplace strikes that regularly bring the city to a standstill, London has ranked first as the “best city” in Europe.
0 kommentar(er)
