Shwa Posted May 16, 2011 Report Posted May 16, 2011 Price-Waterhouse-Cooper survey says (from the Star) Forget Paris — Toronto is where it’s at Toronto ranked just behind New York City in an annual report on the top 26 “Cities of Opportunity” by PricewaterhouseCoopers. The report heralds Toronto’s feat as spectacular, given that the “small city” topped powerhouses like London, Paris and Hong Kong. “New York might win because it’s really big and has been around a long time,” said Bill Sand, the firm’s director of thought leadership. “But if you really look at it, New York didn’t blow the other cities away.” In fact, by the report’s grading process Toronto was only 31 points behind the Big Apple. This city was 23 points ahead of San Francisco, which finished third. What kills Toronto of course, is crappy Internet and the Don Valley Parking Lot, among other things... When it comes to quality of Toronto’s Internet services, there is much to be desired. We’re a bit better than Santiago and a little worse than Istanbul when it comes to broadband quality. Limited transit coverage, the cost of public transportation and an insufficient number of licensed taxis contributed to our low rating. Cities near the top of the list have well-entrenched transit systems that have become part of the area’s cultural identity, such San Francisco’s cable cars, Chicago’s “L” train and the Metro in Paris. Quote
Jack Weber Posted May 16, 2011 Report Posted May 16, 2011 Argos suck!!! Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Michael Hardner Posted May 16, 2011 Report Posted May 16, 2011 Argos suck!!! They're still much better than Paris' CFL team. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Jack Weber Posted May 16, 2011 Report Posted May 16, 2011 They're still much better than Paris' CFL team. Nothin' from nothin' is still nothin'.... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
fellowtraveller Posted May 17, 2011 Report Posted May 17, 2011 such San Francisco’s cable cars,Note that those cable cars have very limited scope within SF and are mainly a tourist attraction. Aside from that, SF has very good transit, mostly buses and commuter rail.You could not pay me to live in Toronto. People have tried just that, to pay me to live there, and have all failed. Quote The government should do something.
Black Dog Posted May 17, 2011 Report Posted May 17, 2011 Toronto ranked just behind New York City in an annual report on the top 26 “Cities of Opportunity” by PricewaterhouseCoopers. The report heralds Toronto’s feat as spectacular, given that the “small city” topped powerhouses like London, Paris and Hong Kong. “New York might win because it’s really big and has been around a long time,” said Bill Sand, the firm’s director of thought leadership. “But if you really look at it, New York didn’t blow the other cities away.” In fact, by the report’s grading process Toronto was only 31 points behind the Big Apple. This city was 23 points ahead of San Francisco, which finished third. Thank goodness, Toronto has a mayor who is dedicated to putting a stop to this nonsense. Cities aren't meant to be livable. They are where you go to work and then drive home to your house in the suburbs. City living is for pinkos, homos and poor people. Quote
bloodyminded Posted May 17, 2011 Report Posted May 17, 2011 Thank goodness, Toronto has a mayor who is dedicated to putting a stop to this nonsense. Cities aren't meant to be livable. They are where you go to work and then drive home to your house in the suburbs. City living is for pinkos, homos and poor people. And (non-European) immigrants. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Black Dog Posted May 18, 2011 Report Posted May 18, 2011 (edited) And (non-European) immigrants. Nah, man: they love Fordo. And Ford loves them (well, their votes, anyway). Edited May 18, 2011 by Black Dog Quote
Shady Posted May 18, 2011 Report Posted May 18, 2011 Thank goodness, Toronto has a mayor who is dedicated to putting a stop to this nonsense. Cities aren't meant to be livable. They are where you go to work and then drive home to your house in the suburbs. City living is for pinkos, homos and poor people. I was wondering how long it would take one of you to find a way to relate this to Rob Ford! Good show! Still crying a like a little titty-baby over the election huh? Move on guy. Move on. Quote
Jack Weber Posted May 18, 2011 Report Posted May 18, 2011 I was wondering how long it would take one of you to find a way to relate this to Rob Ford! Good show! Still crying a like a little titty-baby over the election huh? Move on guy. Move on. Professor... You could have saved the bandwidth and gone with your patented "Complete Nonsense"... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Black Dog Posted May 18, 2011 Report Posted May 18, 2011 (edited) I was wondering how long it would take one of you to find a way to relate this to Rob Ford! Good show! Still crying a like a little titty-baby over the election huh? Move on guy. Move on. No YouTubes? Son, I am disappoint. Edited May 18, 2011 by Black Dog Quote
Black Dog Posted May 18, 2011 Report Posted May 18, 2011 To address the village idiot's post, this topic does relate back to the current political leadership of the Toronto because if you actually look at the areas Toronto in which Toronto scored high in the PWH survey (or indeed, the survey as a whole) you'll find that it's a reverse list of Ford priorities. For example, Toronto's crime rate is exceedingly low for a city of it's size. Yet Rob Ford wants to throw more bodies and money at the cops and small time "law and order" initiatives like the graffiti clean up. Transit and infrastructure, an area where Toronto scored poorly, is not on Ford's radar either in any meaningful capacity save for his unicorn and wish powered subway to nowhere. The thrust of it is that great cities aren't built on small-time, nickel and dime shit like the Brothers Ford and their minions are championing. That shit might fly in Hooterville where Shady lives and where the Ford's would be right at home, but Canada's biggest city-hell, all of Canada's cities-deserve more. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted May 18, 2011 Report Posted May 18, 2011 Forget Paris - But don't forget New York, eh? Quote
Shwa Posted May 18, 2011 Author Report Posted May 18, 2011 But don't forget New York, eh? Barring a tidal wave, being frozen solid, a volcano, being wiped out by telepathic aliens, having a giant ape, dinosuar or a godzilla-like creature attacking, New Yawk will always be #1. All T.O. can hope for is second best. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted May 18, 2011 Report Posted May 18, 2011 Barring a tidal wave, being frozen solid, a volcano, being wiped out by telepathic aliens, having a giant ape, dinosuar or a godzilla-like creature attacking, New Yawk will always be #1. All T.O. can hope for is second best. Why? Because the PricewaterhouseCoopers of the world says so? It's just some peoples' opinion, no more, no less. It depends on the individual, which city best suits them. As far as I'm concerned, NYC has nothing up over Toronto which has nothing up over Paris which has nothing up over San Francisco .......... Quote
Michael Hardner Posted May 19, 2011 Report Posted May 19, 2011 Why? Because the PricewaterhouseCoopers of the world says so? It's just some peoples' opinion, no more, no less. It depends on the individual, which city best suits them. As far as I'm concerned, NYC has nothing up over Toronto which has nothing up over Paris which has nothing up over San Francisco .......... I like that list ! Except I would switch San Fran and Paris - both amazing places btw. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Guest American Woman Posted May 19, 2011 Report Posted May 19, 2011 I like that list ! Except I would switch San Fran and Paris - both amazing places btw. Actually, I got the order wrong - San Francisco did come in third, above Paris; and they're all amazing places, which was my point. My personal favorite though, if I were forced to choose, would be San Francisco. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted May 19, 2011 Report Posted May 19, 2011 Yes, that is a great city. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Bonam Posted May 19, 2011 Report Posted May 19, 2011 Why? Because the PricewaterhouseCoopers of the world says so? It's just some peoples' opinion, no more, no less. It depends on the individual, which city best suits them. As far as I'm concerned, NYC has nothing up over Toronto which has nothing up over Paris which has nothing up over San Francisco .......... I'd take Vancouver and Seattle over any of those places any day. Nowhere beats the Pacific Northwest. Quote
Smallc Posted May 19, 2011 Report Posted May 19, 2011 I'd take Vancouver and Seattle over any of those places any day. Nowhere beats the Pacific Northwest. I'm quite partial to the region that stretches from Ottawa to Quebec City and beyond. I love the mix of terrain and the combination of city and rock. Quote
Bonam Posted May 19, 2011 Report Posted May 19, 2011 I'm quite partial to the region that stretches from Ottawa to Quebec City and beyond. I love the mix of terrain and the combination of city and rock. It's alright. Not mountainous enough for my liking. No ocean either. Quote
Smallc Posted May 19, 2011 Report Posted May 19, 2011 It's alright. Not mountainous enough for my liking. No ocean either. No...but the rivers and the forest are just so beautiful. Wakefield and Clealsea, just outside of Gatineau, are like heaven on earth, IMO. Then again, I've never been the Pacific north west. Maybe next year...or the year after. I really want to get to the UK soon. Quote
Bonam Posted May 19, 2011 Report Posted May 19, 2011 (edited) No...but the rivers and the forest are just so beautiful. Wakefield and Clealsea, just outside of Gatineau, are like heaven on earth, IMO. Then again, I've never been the Pacific north west. Maybe next year...or the year after. I really want to get to the UK soon. The rivers and forests are cool yeah. I lived there for a year and it was fairly enjoyable. But it's really got nothing on the northwest. The forests and rivers here are more beautiful You know, the evergreens with the needles coated in tiny snow crystals, rivers weaving their way through deep mountain valleys between crystal clear green lakes. But for me, it's all about places like this: http://www.pbase.com/nolock/image/35562694 I was standing on the uppermost tip of that just 4 days ago, and it's a mere 2 hour drive to the trailhead from where I live. Nothing in North America comes close to that anywhere east of the Rockies. Edited May 19, 2011 by Bonam Quote
Smallc Posted May 19, 2011 Report Posted May 19, 2011 ick....that's not for me. Give me a canoe ir a moderate hike any day over....someplace high. Quote
Bonam Posted May 19, 2011 Report Posted May 19, 2011 (edited) ick....that's not for me. Give me a canoe ir a moderate hike any day over....someplace high. It was a day hike Definitely not moderate though... 17 hours round trip with glacier gear and climbing gear, 7000 feet elevation gain. My gf and I had a great time! But yeah, definitely not for everyone. There's a few hundred awesome moderate hikes within 1-2 hour drive of both Vancouver and Seattle, though, and canoeing locations too. The weekend before that we did canoeing. Edited May 19, 2011 by Bonam Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.