PDA

View Full Version : Best European city for quality of living ?



Maciamo
05-04-07, 14:20
Mercer, a consulting company, ranks annually 215 cities around the world for their quality of living. Here are the highlights from the 2007 Quality of Living Survey (http://www.mercerhr.com/referencecontent.jhtml?idContent=1128060).

Here is Mercer's ranking Top 20 for the EU :

1) Vienna
2) Düsseldorf
3) Frankfurt
4) Munich
5) Copenhagen
6) Amsterdam
7) Brussels
8) Berlin
9) Luxembourg
10) Stockholm
11) Nuremberg
12) Hamburg
13) Dublin
14) Helsinki
15) Paris
16) Lyon
17) London
18) Barcelona
19) Madrid
20) Lisbon

Like for ranking regarding the cost of life (http://www.wa-pedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9396) (remember how Tokyo always outranks London !), I am always surprised (not to say appalled) by the results of the survey. The rankings are clearly based on raw number and people who make them obviously haven't lived in the cities in the list before ranking them.

It is time they realise that quality of life (and living) does not depend as much on GDP per capita and sanitation as on the beauty of the place, the quality of the food, the character of the people, and the comfort of the climate. Unfortunately it is impossible to have statistics for the average level of beauty of a city and or the average taste of its restaurants. Hence the aberration of the results.

How can a city as ugly and unpleasant as Düsseldorf be 2nd for the EU, and dreamlike places like Nice, Florence or Rome not even make the top 50 ? I have been to Düsseldorf, and I wouldn't even recommend it as a place to visit or stay overnight. The place is just so depressing; I can't understand how someone would want to put it in the top 100 for Europe.

How comes that Northern Europe, where the weather sucks big time, outranks all the cities in Mediterranean Europe, where life is so comfortable that millionaires and stars hurry to buy a second home there ? Italian and Southern French cities don't even make the top 50.

Then you have cities where the quality of living is fairly similar everywhere (e.g. Tokyo, Luxembourg), and others where the gap between rich and poor neighbourhood is so huge that it would require completely separate rankings (e.g. Paris, Brussels, London, New York).

Mercer's ranking was made for expats, so things like education or social security don't matter, while the attractiveness of the place does. If a city has strong socio-economic divisions, it is most likely than expats will choose to live in the good part of the city, not in the slums. So the ranking should be based on this kind of neighbourhood and leave out the rest.

Paris wouldn't make the top 100 if the lower class banlieues where taken into account in the average. Brussels certainly wouldn't be 7th in the EU. These rankings are probably based on the best neighbourhoods in these cities. But then, how comes London is not in the top 5 ?

However you look at it, this ranking is strange. Among the cities listed, I have lived (or stayed long enough to know the city well) in London, Brussels, Paris, Berlin, Barcelona, Florence, Rome, and Tokyo. I would rank them like this for the quality of living :

1) London
2) Rome
3) Brussels
4) Paris
5) Florence
6) Tokyo
7) Berlin
8) Barcelona


They ranked it :

1) Brussels
2) Berlin
3) Paris
4) Tokyo
5) London
6) Barcelona

- Rome and Florence not in top 50.

They explain the criteria they take into account here (http://www.mercerhr.com/referencecontent.jhtml?idContent=1173105)

For my rating, I removed "Schools and education" and split "Socio-cultural environment" between "political environment" (censorship, etc.) and recreation (cultural life). I also added 2 new criteria : beauty & atmosphere, and pollution & cleanliness.

A. Political and social environment

I don't think there is a big difference in political stability, crime, censorship, limitations on personal freedom between these cities. Tokyo may have a bit less crime, but a more stifled political environment.

B. Economic environment

It's easier to find a job in London or Tokyo than in Florence or Rome. Banks are definitely better in Belgium than in France, Italy or Japan.

C. Health and sanitation

Medical services are best in continental Europe, then in Britain, and Japan comes last.

D. Public services and transportation

The best metro is Tokyo's, the worst in Brussels. But buses in Tokyo suck, while those in Brussels (+ tramway) are ok. Traffic congestion and pollution are worst in Paris and best in Tokyo. Florence does not have a metro or tramways and suffers a lot from traffic jams (narrow streets) and parking problems.

E. Recreation

Cultural life and recreational activities are obvioiusly better in London and Paris (then Tokyo) than in smaller cities, but all the above fare quite well in this regard.

Restaurants are worst in Barcelona, then Berlin. Paris and Tokyo are probably the world's two best cities for food, but Brussels, London, are also great. Rome and Florence are good, but lack diversity.

F. Consumer goods

Obviously best in the three metropolis : London, Paris and Tokyo. Brussels being so cosmopolitan, everything can be found. Less choice in Mediterranean cities. Prices are the highest in London, followed by Paris. It is cheapest in Barcelona, then Berlin.

G. Housing

Sucks big time in Tokyo and East Berlin. Some of the best houses in the world are to be found in London, Paris, Florence and Rome, but prices go up accordingly. Brussels has one of the best quality/price ratio.

H. Natural environment

The climate is best in the Mediterranean, worst in Tokyo (muggy summers, chilly winters). Paris, London and Brussels are similar. Berlin a bit less good (colder winters). Natural disasters are only a problem in Tokyo (earthquakes, typhoons). Tokyo is also the least green city. The greenest is Brussels (over 50% of greenery), followed by Berlin.

I. Beauty & atmosphere

Tokyo is the ugliest, but has "sexy" (although neurotic) atmosphere. European cities listed are very beautiful, except Berlin, Brussels and Barcelona. East Berlin is absolutely ugly. Most of the city was razed in 1945, so there isn't many historic buildings left. Brussels has some beautiful neighbourhood and monuments, but a lot of ugly parts too. Barcelona is ok, but not exceptionally beautiful compared to Paris or Rome.

The atmosphere is warmer and more relax in Italy and Spain. Parisian can be a P.I.T.A. (rude, arrogant, dangerous drivers...). Brussels can be very friendly and polite, but it tends to be hard to get into a social circle for outsiders. Barcelona is certainly friendlier for (Catalan-speaking) Spaniards than foreigners. The most welcoming cities would be London, Florence, and Rome.

J. Pollution, noise and cleanliness

No big winner here, except maybe Tokyo for cleanliness and air pollution.
Mediterranean cities are more noisy than average (honking, late partying, scooters everywhere). Paris has too much traffic, making it too noisy and polluted. Central Paris and Brussels hav notoriously dirty pavements (not the nicer neighbourhoods though).


My scores from 0 (worst) to 5 (best) for the 9 above citeria for the 8 cities (A/B/C/D/E/F/G/H/I/J) + overall rating :


1) London : 4 + 4 + 4 + 4 + 5 + 5 + 4 + 3 + 5 + 2 = 40/50
2) Rome : 4 + 3 + 4 + 3 + 4 + 3 + 4 + 4 + 5 + 2 = 36/50
2) Brussels : 4 + 4 + 5 + 3 + 3 + 4 + 4 + 4 + 3 + 2 = 36/50
4) Paris : 4 + 4 + 5 + 4 + 5 + 5 + 4 + 3 + 4 + 1 = 35/50
5) Florence : 4 + 3 + 4 + 2 + 4 + 3 + 4 + 4 + 5 + 2 = 34/50
6) Tokyo : 4 + 4 + 2 + 5 + 4 + 4 + 2 + 1 + 2 + 4 = 32/50
6) Berlin : 4 + 3 + 4 + 3 + 4 + 4 + 3 + 3 + 2 + 2 = 32/50
8) Barcelona : 4 + 3 + 4 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 2 = 31/50

Kinsao
11-04-07, 17:03
Interesting indeed! I have never lived in any of the cities mentioned for any length of time, so can't really comment... my current city is not on the list but I can't say I'm surprised!

As a Brit it's nice to see that you rank London highly though. :) I think it is a nice city, on balance... (having visited only 6 out of the cities mentioned)... I wouldn't like to live there for permanently though... way too expensive. :sorry:

I found people in Paris to be pretty friendly... but having said that, I was speaking most of the time with immigrants rather than 'natives'! :blush:

Wilhelm
29-04-10, 03:45
This contradicts a survey which says Pamplona has the highest quality of life in Spain

Cambrius (The Red)
29-04-10, 04:55
The survey is three years old. Anything for 2009-2010?

Maciamo
29-04-10, 09:03
The survey is three years old. Anything for 2009-2010?

If you follow the link in source, you will get the latest ranking on Mercer's website. The European top 5 in 2009 is :

1) Vienna
2) Zurich
3) Geneva
4) Dusseldorf
5) Munich

Maciamo
29-04-10, 09:04
This contradicts a survey which says Pamplona has the highest quality of life in Spain

Each survey has its own series of criteria. It would be very unlikely that separate surveys achieve the same ranking based on different criteria - especially on a topic as subjective as quality of life.

Wilhelm
29-04-10, 14:38
Each survey has its own series of criteria. It would be very unlikely that separate surveys achieve the same ranking based on different criteria - especially on a topic as subjective as quality of life.
The survey seems to be based on big cities only

Cambrius (The Red)
29-04-10, 14:53
Yes, there is probably a minimum population number they use.

Gwyllgi
30-04-10, 09:52
Nice, for the climate and environment, Goslar am Harz 'cos it's nice (apart from that bloody clock)

Maciamo
30-04-10, 10:34
The survey seems to be based on big cities only

For all countries except Switzerland. I don't know why Mercer put Geneva (population 185,000) and Zurich (pop. 365,000) in the same category as cities of over 1 million inhabitants. There are hundreds of cities of that size just in Western Europe that would rank pretty high for quality of living.

phoenix_jaybee
24-06-10, 18:39
I think these surveys are not objective are too objective, and that's the problem, I live in Spain and I see that in the ranking Madrid is 19 and Barcelona 18, when actually in fact, Barcelona is just the same as Madrid regarding infrastructure, but so much better regarding quality of life and beauty of the city itself, as a capital, Madrid is one of the ugliest capital I visited, even if like everywhere, you can find nice part.

Maciamo
27-06-10, 09:17
I think these surveys are not objective are too objective, and that's the problem, I live in Spain and I see that in the ranking Madrid is 19 and Barcelona 18, when actually in fact, Barcelona is just the same as Madrid regarding infrastructure, but so much better regarding quality of life and beauty of the city itself, as a capital, Madrid is one of the ugliest capital I visited, even if like everywhere, you can find nice part.

Beauty is subjective. Personally I find Madrid more beautiful than Barcelona, although Barcelona is more pleasant to live thanks to the sea and the more friendly atmosphere. But beauty, pleasantness and friendliness cannot be gauged objectively and therefore are not used for ranking cities by quality of living. What matters is statistics.

Anatolian
31-08-10, 14:30
Istanbul is a fun and adventures city to live in but it's a chaos, just like athens

ricjoseph96
20-10-10, 08:46
Hey that list is quite crazy,i am just shoecke dnot even a single city from Switzerland;Bern,Zurich,Geneva,Interlaken .Had they forgot while preparing this list and also surprising where is Venice?..This list must be revamped.

Regards: Bebo Kobo

Maciamo
21-10-10, 08:49
Hey that list is quite crazy,i am just shoecke dnot even a single city from Switzerland;Bern,Zurich,Geneva,Interlaken .Had they forgot while preparing this list and also surprising where is Venice?..This list must be revamped.

Regards: Bebo Kobo

The list is for the EU. Switzerland is not in the EU.

rensen
27-01-11, 07:47
I think these surveys are not objective are too objective, and that's the problem, I live in Spain and I see that in the ranking Madrid is 19 and Barcelona 18, when actually in fact, Barcelona is just the same as Madrid regarding infrastructure, but so much better regarding quality of life and beauty of the city itself, as a capital, Madrid is one of the ugliest capital I visited, even if like everywhere, you can find nice part.

I agree with that! In terms of ranking it should be the opposite. These rankings are always subjective to a certain extent. It would be interesting to know all the criterion that the evaluated the cities by. Anybody know those?

Grizzly
28-01-11, 21:00
Hey that list is quite crazy,i am just shoecke dnot even a single city from Switzerland;Bern,Zurich,Geneva,Interlaken.

Zu teuer !!! :laughing:

Reinaert
01-02-11, 21:51
I don't like any European city.

Maciamo
02-02-11, 10:00
I don't like any European city.

And in how many have you lived ?

Wilhelm
02-02-11, 14:38
I don't like any European city.
You don't like the dutch people, you don't like any european city, what's with this self-hating ?

Reinaert
02-02-11, 19:16
You don't like the dutch people, you don't like any european city, what's with this self-hating ?

I am just an honest person.

With people it's just like with rats, if too many live in the same area, aggression is spoiling the fun of life.

Thank God I'm a Country Boy. :grin:

Reinaert
02-02-11, 19:19
And in how many have you lived ?

I worked and lived in 3 cities during my life, but I don't like them.
Too crowded. Parking tickets. Dirt. Brutal behavior. Etc. Etc.

Garrick
04-02-11, 01:24
Maciamo
It seems to be very difficult someone finds objective criteria by which cities could be the appropriate measure.

But it is not impossible to clearly define such criteria.

Also, it is difficult to compare a city of 300,000 inhabitants and 3000000.

So it might be better to make certain categories, probably would be at the top as a criterion for the category: number of population.

I visited some of these cities and personally the biggest impression on me has left Berlin, (I speak from the point of choice for life), but since I will travel more around the Mediterranean next years, so probably will highly valued some Mediterranean city from the list.

Maciamo
01-12-11, 09:02
Mercer has released its 2011 city ranking for Quality of Living (http://www.mercer.com/qualityoflivingpr).

1) Vienna
2) Zurich
3 Auckland
4) Munich
5) Düsseldorf
-) Vancouver
7) Frankfurt
8) Geneva
9) Bern
-) Copenhagen
11) Sydney
12) Amsterdam
13) Wellington
14) Ottawa
15) Toronto
16) Hamburg
17) Berlin
18) Melbourne
19) Luxembourg
20) Stockholm


Here is the top 20 for the EU :

1) Vienna
2) Munich
3 Düsseldorf
4) Frankfurt
5) Copenhagen
6) Amsterdam
7) Hamburg
8) Berlin
9) Luxembourg
10) Stockholm
11) Brussels
12) Nuremberg
13) Dublin
14) Stuttgart
15) Paris
16) Oslo
17) Helsinki
18) London
19) Lyon
20) Barcelona

There hasn't been so much change since I started this thread 4 years ago.

Interestingly not a single US city made it to the world top 20, while Canadian cities rank quite high. The first city in the USA is Honolulu, Hawaii. Having been there, it only confirms what I wrote above about the poor choice of criteria to determine the quality of living. Honolulu wouldn't rank in my top 500 of cities where I wished to live. It's extremely remote from everything, rather boring (in every respects: culture, activities, climate...), doesn't have much history, and the food is among the worst I have had on this planet. Oahu feels like a place of forced exile to me (a bit like Napoleon in St Helena).

sparkey
01-12-11, 17:35
Interestingly not a single US city made it to the world top 20, while Canadian cities rank quite high. The first city in the USA is Honolulu, Hawaii. Having been there, it only confirms what I wrote above about the poor choice of criteria to determine the quality of living. Honolulu wouldn't rank in my top 500 of cities where I wished to live. It's extremely remote from everything, rather boring (in every respects: culture, activities, climate...), doesn't have much history, and the food is among the worst I have had on this planet. Oahu feels like a place of forced exile to me (a bit like Napoleon in St Helena).

I disagree about Honolulu. It has a lot of local culture; it's a really interesting Anglo-American/East Asian/Polynesian mix that you don't get anywhere else in the world. It has a ton of activities... well, at least if you like the ocean. It has a tropical climate, which a lot of people like, and it's not exactly a "boring" one. It has a history I find interesting, personally. And I like Hawaiian food. The only thing you wrote about it that I really agree with is that it's too isolated.

Your objections do highlight a problem with these sorts of studies, though. You'd likely be miserable in Honolulu, and thereby have a lower quality of life there than in places ranked below it. So I prefer "where should you live?"-type quizzes better than these sorts of surveys that pretend to be objective.

Maciamo
01-12-11, 18:19
I disagree about Honolulu. It has a lot of local culture; it's a really interesting Anglo-American/East Asian/Polynesian mix that you don't get anywhere else in the world.

If you like cosmopolitanism, try LA, New York or London or Sydney instead. Much richer mix of cultures.


It has a ton of activities... well, at least if you like the ocean.

That's the issue. I dislike the beach and the ocean. I prefer forests and mountains. Other Hawaiian islands like Kauai and the main island are nice places for landscapes and nature, but Oahu not really, and it's not exactly easy or cheap to hop from one island to the next.


It has a tropical climate, which a lot of people like, and it's not exactly a "boring" one.

Hawaii has a pleasant climate, for sure, but like all tropical climates it is extremely boring. The lack of seasons means that you cannot look forward to the blossoms or spring, the greenery of summer, the colourful foliages of autumn or the snow in winter. It also makes food more boring. No mushrooms or game in autumn, no big splurge with foie gras and other delicacies when you need to get energy when the weather gets cold...


It has a history I find interesting, personally.

I already find Japanese history rather boring (by European, Middle Eastern or Chinese standards), so Hawaiian one...


And I like Hawaiian food.

The only good food I had in Hawaii was Mexican. We had Japanese at the Sheraton and it was inedible (coming from Tokyo). Chinese food was the worst Chinese I had (we tried many places). Etc.



Your objections do highlight a problem with these sorts of studies, though. You'd likely be miserable in Honolulu, and thereby have a lower quality of life there than in places ranked below it. So I prefer "where should you live?"-type quizzes better than these sorts of surveys that pretend to be objective.

Let's agree on that.

Antigone
01-12-11, 18:51
Mercer has released its 2011 city ranking for Quality of Living (http://www.mercer.com/qualityoflivingpr).

1) Vienna
2) Zurich
3 Auckland
4) Munich
5) Düsseldorf
-) Vancouver
7) Frankfurt
8) Geneva
9) Bern
-) Copenhagen
11) Sydney
12) Amsterdam
13) Wellington
14) Ottawa
15) Toronto
16) Hamburg
17) Berlin
18) Melbourne
19) Luxembourg
20) Stockholm.

I can't believe both Sydney and Melbourne made the top 20. Ok they are clean and wages, health care etc are good, but they also have high crime, public transport is woeful, no culture or history to speak of, and not much to see or do unless one is interested in sport or shopping, ugh.

Cimmerianbloke
03-12-11, 00:11
Definitely a weird result. Vienna is nice though, I just don't see any link between the top contenders. Düsseldrof is indeed a surprise runner up. Prague should be on top of the list, IMO.

Maciamo
03-12-11, 09:29
Definitely a weird result. Vienna is nice though, I just don't see any link between the top contenders. Düsseldrof is indeed a surprise runner up. Prague should be on top of the list, IMO.

The problem with Mercer's ranking is that it is a completely artificial list based solely on vague statistic markers like GDP, crime rate (possibly with different way of calculating or reporting in each country), or things that just don't matter for quality of living in the developed world like internal stability. They fail to integrate what really matters to the quality of life, such as climate (especially days of sunlight), quality of housing (how do you assess that with statistics ?), the beauty and atmosphere of the city (if they did Düsseldorf would never make the top 50) or the quality and diversity of restaurants (not just their number). They take into account factors such as the availability of consumer goods, which may have been important 50 years ago, but not in the age of e-commerce and home deliveries.

PaschalisB
19-01-12, 11:28
Oslo would be my absolute favorite if it wasn't for the ridiculously high prices and the cold winters. It's simply one of the most beautiful cities in Europe.