Dublin scores higher that Amsterdam? If it is that wrong in that instance it makes me question is there anything useful in there at all?
Just fyi, Dublin has a rather dense core (too dense) surrounded by a 10km wide ring of extremely low density suburbs where services can't function efficiently. Everyone has to drive a car. It's a Detroit model disaster.
Whereas Amsterdam is a uniform medium density throughout and at its border it just ends and gives way to farmland. It has the right density throughout for services like transport, hospitals, schools, recreation, shops etc. to work.
A lot of which isn't under the purview of Dublin City Council - what you're talking about is the M50 ring, and the purview of the other 3 councils - Fingal (e.g. Swords and Malahide) South Dublin County Council (Tallaght and Clondalkin), and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council (self-explanatory).
In terms of where they're talking about, it's basically the area between the canals - i.e. Dublin City 'proper' - Smithfield/Stoneybatter, The Liberties/Coombe, Christchurch/Temple Bar, and IFSC/Grand Canal Dock. Far more walkable and inundated with history and sites of huge cultural significance even compared to Paris or Amsterdam, and a different experience completely compared to the impersonal and often dangerous nature of London for the pedestrian.
The vast majority of people working in the CBD are commuting in on the LUAS Green and Red lines, or the DART/Train into Tara/Connolly. Whatever about Dublin Bus, these are perfectly good and regular public transport options.
I'm not sure about the listed facts... I opened up Helsinki where I live, and got this: "Every residential building has a sauna -- it's not a luxury, it's basic infrastructure, like having hot water."
Certainly it's very common, but certainly not "every" residential building has one.
I looked at some other cities I know a bit. Those "facts" are typical AI slop. Not always completely wrong, but stereotypes you will easily find on the internet.
A lot depends on what you consider walking distance and also personal preferences about location and walking.
Looking at London, the top rated place is Soho. Sure, a lot of people do choose to live there, but when I moved to London, I'm so glad I had to walk across central London on a couple of occasions before I actually found a flat. I went through Soho once on a Friday night and realised there was absolutely no way I'd ever be able to sleep at night and ruled it out. The next highest place is Seven Dials, which is fine for a night out, but again I wouldn't actually want to live there.
I actually chose to live about a minute walk from Hyde Park and 5 minutes from Paddington. That scores 89, so not much below the 96-ish of those top 2, but it's around 30-45 minutes walk from both of those. I think it only scores so highly because of the food options on Edgware Road, but there's not much else to do in that area, certainly not within 10 minutes walk, and I would frequently walk into more central London to do things. My cut-off before using the tube was 60-90 minutes walk each way depending on my mood, and would only use the tube on about 10% of days and averaged probably 90 minutes total walking on normal days. I guess my idea of walking distance is much higher than the 10 minutes suggested by the article. I'd definitely choose to live there again though if I went back to London.
EDIT: I've just looked at where I live now (a long way outside London). My current place scores 38 with only 1 in nightlife (a pub) and zero in all the other categories. Ironically, it gets the same score of 38 as an adjacent tile which somehow gets 0 in all the categories even though it's closer to the pub. Another adjacent tile scores 18 with basically the same stats, seemingly losing because it has fewer marked parking spots and no park (even though that tile is on a massive area of common land, hence why it doesn't have many facilities). The centre of the town, all the tiles score 96, which is true there are more things to do, but there's very few nice places to live in any of them. The whole thing seems a little odd to me, and I certainly wouldn't use this to decide where to live.
I think it rates Soho top for going out but says to live in Deptford which is kind of interesting. I've lived around London most of my life but not hung out there.
Same reason there is a button saying "View all 50 cities" (with a down pointing arrow) below the list of all 50 cities, that, when you click it, scrolls back up to the start of the list that you just looked at.
Dublin scores higher that Amsterdam? If it is that wrong in that instance it makes me question is there anything useful in there at all?
Just fyi, Dublin has a rather dense core (too dense) surrounded by a 10km wide ring of extremely low density suburbs where services can't function efficiently. Everyone has to drive a car. It's a Detroit model disaster.
Whereas Amsterdam is a uniform medium density throughout and at its border it just ends and gives way to farmland. It has the right density throughout for services like transport, hospitals, schools, recreation, shops etc. to work.
A lot of which isn't under the purview of Dublin City Council - what you're talking about is the M50 ring, and the purview of the other 3 councils - Fingal (e.g. Swords and Malahide) South Dublin County Council (Tallaght and Clondalkin), and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council (self-explanatory).
In terms of where they're talking about, it's basically the area between the canals - i.e. Dublin City 'proper' - Smithfield/Stoneybatter, The Liberties/Coombe, Christchurch/Temple Bar, and IFSC/Grand Canal Dock. Far more walkable and inundated with history and sites of huge cultural significance even compared to Paris or Amsterdam, and a different experience completely compared to the impersonal and often dangerous nature of London for the pedestrian.
The vast majority of people working in the CBD are commuting in on the LUAS Green and Red lines, or the DART/Train into Tara/Connolly. Whatever about Dublin Bus, these are perfectly good and regular public transport options.
> Amsterdam is a uniform medium density throughout and at its border it just ends and gives way to farmland.
Except Amstelveen. But then, there isn't much of a change in density there.
I'm not sure about the listed facts... I opened up Helsinki where I live, and got this: "Every residential building has a sauna -- it's not a luxury, it's basic infrastructure, like having hot water."
Certainly it's very common, but certainly not "every" residential building has one.
Perhaps not, but I'm sure you'd never be more than 10 minutes walk from a sauna. Unless you're somewhere pretty remote.
In Helsinki, three minutes max.
Sure, but ten minutes was the benchmark of the original site!
I looked at some other cities I know a bit. Those "facts" are typical AI slop. Not always completely wrong, but stereotypes you will easily find on the internet.
A lot depends on what you consider walking distance and also personal preferences about location and walking.
Looking at London, the top rated place is Soho. Sure, a lot of people do choose to live there, but when I moved to London, I'm so glad I had to walk across central London on a couple of occasions before I actually found a flat. I went through Soho once on a Friday night and realised there was absolutely no way I'd ever be able to sleep at night and ruled it out. The next highest place is Seven Dials, which is fine for a night out, but again I wouldn't actually want to live there.
I actually chose to live about a minute walk from Hyde Park and 5 minutes from Paddington. That scores 89, so not much below the 96-ish of those top 2, but it's around 30-45 minutes walk from both of those. I think it only scores so highly because of the food options on Edgware Road, but there's not much else to do in that area, certainly not within 10 minutes walk, and I would frequently walk into more central London to do things. My cut-off before using the tube was 60-90 minutes walk each way depending on my mood, and would only use the tube on about 10% of days and averaged probably 90 minutes total walking on normal days. I guess my idea of walking distance is much higher than the 10 minutes suggested by the article. I'd definitely choose to live there again though if I went back to London.
EDIT: I've just looked at where I live now (a long way outside London). My current place scores 38 with only 1 in nightlife (a pub) and zero in all the other categories. Ironically, it gets the same score of 38 as an adjacent tile which somehow gets 0 in all the categories even though it's closer to the pub. Another adjacent tile scores 18 with basically the same stats, seemingly losing because it has fewer marked parking spots and no park (even though that tile is on a massive area of common land, hence why it doesn't have many facilities). The centre of the town, all the tiles score 96, which is true there are more things to do, but there's very few nice places to live in any of them. The whole thing seems a little odd to me, and I certainly wouldn't use this to decide where to live.
I think it rates Soho top for going out but says to live in Deptford which is kind of interesting. I've lived around London most of my life but not hung out there.
Nice idea … did they consider warping the map, I wonder. Not sure why parks in London rank an E or F on the “daily life” scale
Your 10-minute walk is not my 10-minute walk.
The good to know points are very strange; looking at London:
| Most Londoners socialize in their own neighborhood and rarely cross the river -- pick your area carefully because it becomes your whole world.
This just flat out isn't true and is a bit of a historic trope
| Council tax varies wildly by borough, so two flats at the same rent can cost hundreds different per year in total.
Council tax is defined by the value of the property, not by the rent
| The Overground and Elizabeth Line have completely changed which neighborhoods are convenient -- don't just look at Tube maps.
The tube maps show the Overground and Elizabeth Lines as well as all the other TFL managed services. A better map of where is "convenient" is this https://neilgarratt.com/campaigns/improving-travel-times/
Having said that I 100% agree with the rest:
| Sunday in London is genuinely excellent with markets, roasts in pubs, and park life -- it's the city's secret best day.
| Cycling has become a serious commuting option with protected lanes expanding every year, especially south of the river.
Coastal areas have a bug where the first line of sea tiles report results > 0.
10 minute walk or swim.
Why does the site use someone a bicycle for the icon for "Car Infra".
Same reason there is a button saying "View all 50 cities" (with a down pointing arrow) below the list of all 50 cities, that, when you click it, scrolls back up to the start of the list that you just looked at.
Because it was AI generated and not proofread.
[flagged]
[dead]