Uploaded on 2015-10-11 by jetoff41

-------------------------------- For me, the best description of livability is the one from Partnership For Sustainable Communities. I am happy with all of these points, because I like the idea of a place, where you can do the „most important“ things in life - going to work, see a doctor, going out for dinner or a movie and take your kids to school, or later to a park. And everything without driving a car. Furthermore, I like the slogan from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission - a place, where you „want to live, work and visit“. It reminds me to the motto of the city of Singapore - „Live, Work, Play“. If you need to define livability with the following terms, how would you rank them? (1: most important - 7: least important) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. Environment 2. Opportunity 3. Housing 4. Neighborhood 5. Health 6. Engagement 7. Transportation **3,4 & 5** ------- ![Livability scores of my selected cities][1] **6** - On my opinion, the most important livability term is ENVIRONMENT. All of my selected cities have similar scores. Honolulu leads the group, closely followed by Palo Alto. I was a bit surprised that even Anchorage was not far away from the others. Giving the term ENVIRONMENT higher importance, all of my selected cities lost score points. Again with a interesting fact: the change was almost equal. The lost of 5, 4 and 5 points means that these cities might be pollutive and do not give much care about environmentalism. If I am right, Anchorage has an economy quite based on oil drilling. Honolulu is a hub for shipping and air traffic. But I have no idea, what’s the environmental problem from Palo Alto? Maybe you have an explanation ... [1]: http://s17.postimg.org/k1uwzbugf/Bildschirmfoto_2015_10_10_um_20_40_34.png