Christopher Hume: Are Canada’s cities still ‘world-class’?

New York is the best city in the world, but Paris is the most beautiful. Abu Dhabi may be the richest, but Vienna is the most livable. Though Tokyo has the largest population, London is the most global.

These are just some of the findings of various urban surveys released in recent years. Ranking “world-class” cities has emerged recently as a kind of international cottage industry. But don’t look too closely; not only are the results contradictory, they are all over the map—quite literally. Can a city be named the “happiest on the planet,” but not be the “best”? If money buys happiness, shouldn’t Abu Dhabi be the most euphoric? And by the way, if New York is the “best city” in the world, how can London, or Taipei, also be the “finest” in the world?

Obviously, just as one man’s treasure is another man’s trash, a city considered most desirable by some is one to be avoided at all costs by others. And exactly who is the audience for these ratings? Locals or visitors, rich or poor, young or old? Why do we bother?

Perhaps the answer lies in our inability to resist smirking at the less fortunate, and more important, shrugging at those who have more. On the other hand, though results vary wildly, certain cities consistently perform well while others regularly fail miserably. The fact that Vienna has been named the world’s most liveable city three years running must say something about the quality of life in the Austrian capital.

At the same time, no one would dispute New York’s status as a financial, cultural, and media centre of unmatched significance. But for many residents, life in the Big Apple is more difficult than ever. No wonder it has also been named as one of the U.S.’s worst places to live. And though Abu Dhabi is home to a large number of obscenely wealthy inhabitants, low-wage migrant workers make up the bulk of the population. For them, the city is a living hell.

As for Canadian cities, when they do make a global cities list, it’s for their liveability. To date, the contenders have been Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, and Calgary. We may not be the richest, most influential, or the happiest, but we are among the best cities to live in. There’s nothing wrong with that, but again, the meaning of liveability is debatable, especially given inflation and recent increases in the cost of living. Indeed, liveability is one of those qualities defined more by the absence of negatives than the presence of positives. Still, while they are facing rising challenges around rising violent crime, homelessness, and drug use, when compared internationally Canadian cities remain relatively safe, stable, and orderly.

Without second-guessing our cities’ performance on various surveys, one can’t help but wonder how the Economic Intelligence Unit had Calgary in a fifth-place tie with Geneva as the most liveable city and Vancouver in a seventh-place tie with Sydney, Australia. Clearly, the Calgary decision was made before a burst main created a water emergency that lasted months.

And let’s be honest, few would be shocked to learn that in 2024 Toronto fell to twelfth place after three years in the global liveability index’s most liveable top 10. Blame the housing crisis. Needless to say, there could have been other causes, most notably, congestion. The Toronto Region Board of Trade claims that gridlock costs the Greater Toronto Area $11 billion annually. It also says that GTA drivers lose about four days a year waiting for traffic to move. To make matters worse, the Toronto Transit Commission has become the go-to shelter for the homeless. Passengers use public transit at their own risk. In addition to unreliable and inadequate service, the result is that people opt for the TTC only when there is no better way.

Then there’s Ontario Premier Doug Ford. His antipathy against Toronto has reached the point where he is now moving forward with plans that will force the city to remove permanent bike lanes from three of its main streets, at an estimated cost of $48 million. Although such abject pandering to suburbanite sensibilities does nothing to enhance Toronto’s reputation as a cosmopolis, it does reflect the reality of a political system that relegates cities across the country to little more than playthings of the provinces. Thanks to Ford’s ridiculous actions, the world increasingly views Toronto and Canada as Dogpatch writ large.

Regardless, Taylor Swift, the reigning Queen of the Eras, did choose Toronto— soon to be destroyed bike lanes and all—to mount six concerts, selling out each one at 50,000 seats a show.

More than anything, Ford’s knee-jerk city rebukes are symptomatic of the country’s abiding distrust of big cities. Crumbling infrastructure and chronic underfunding notwithstanding, Canadian urbanites find themselves adrift in a sea of suburban and rural resentment. “Just who do these entitled downtown elites think they are anyway?” we are told.

Despite recent urban population growth, more than two-thirds of Canadians live in a suburb of some sort or other. Therein may lie the reason our cities fare less well than they might in these global surveys. While cities in other countries celebrate their beauty, wealth, influence, size, or liveability, ours—tall poppies all—are criticized for standing out.

Perhaps the real measure of Toronto’s success is that it’s the most despised city in the land. You have to be pretty good to earn that kind of enmity.