Best European city for quality of living ?

[Reinaert]

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]

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]

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]

Mercer has released its 2011 city ranking for Quality of Living.

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]

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]

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]

Mercer has released its 2011 city ranking for Quality of Living.

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]

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]

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]

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.