Best city to live out of 231 worldwide. Interesting.

Hi Ilja. I saw this the other day and marveled at Vienna’s being on top. We visited once and were not particularly drawn to it but I can understand the allure of the Swiss cities! Bratislava is on my to-be-visited -in-future list.

Hmm. Not sure I trust any study that can't do simple addition:

Globally, eight of the best ten cities are in Europe – three are in
Germany and Switzerland each, while New Zealand, Canada and Australia
have one each, the Denník N daily cited the Mercer ranking.

Somebody check my math.

CJean, your math is certainly better than theirs.

Vienna has been rated by Mercer's (study cited above) as the highest quality of living for 9 years in a row, worldwide.

Living in a city and visiting a city are two very different things.

True, Emily, very true, both positive and negative are enhanced in residency.

I lived in Vienna for a total of 14 months in the 1990s and have returned many times since. Vienna is a wonderful place to live - a combination of:
--History (everywhere)
--Nature (the Vienna Woods, the Danube, and great parks)
--Ease of transport (public transportation system second for none in terms of getting anywhere in the city)
--Excellent airport and new main train station (when you need to get out of town)
--World class music and venues (Vienna Philharmonic is second to none - I love the New Year's Concert from the Musikverein!)
--Outstanding food and wine and venues (schnitzel, wursts, pastries, heavy breads, coffee, cafes, heurigen, and more)
--Top medical care (our daughter was born there - care for the mother and child were better than what we would have had in the U.S.)
--Very safe

I am sure that Emily can add even more. I am totally NOT surprised that it is consistently the top or among the top places in the world to live.

CJean, Basel and Sydney are listed as equal tenth, hence the discrepancy. I think the confusion is in the reporting, not the fault of the people at Mercer.

1 Vienna Austria
2 Zürich Switzerland
3 Auckland New Zealand
3 Munich Germany
5 Vancouver Canada
6 Düsseldorf Germany
7 Frankfurt Germany
8 Geneva Switzerland
9 Copenhagen Denmark
10 Basel Switzerland
10 Sydney Australia

Interestingly the top 30 contains 7 cities in Germany, 5 in Australia, 4 in Canada, 4 in Switzerland, 2 in New Zealand, and just San Francisco in the USA.

It's nice to see Vancouver on the list, but it looks like the study doesn't consider cost of housing. These days only the rich can afford to buy a house there. This list shows some of the rental costs (I couldn't afford to pay those) - https://www.expatistan.com/cost-of-living/vancouver

It depends on what you want in a city-

If you are young and looking for nightlife than Wien or Vienna isn't that exciting. However, my parents (70s) were there for almost a week and marveled at the fantastic transport, the greenery and culture. Plus my father got sick and had a wonderful experience with a clinic there. They raved about it after worrying about "Socialized medicine".

So all people in the world would be happier in Vienna than in NYC. Who said multiculturalism was dead.

Heather - How do you know that Vienna isn’t exciting for younger people?

Maybe because you see more drunk people in Prague than in Vienna?

I’d argue that there are just as many drunks in Vienna - you just have to know where to look. They’re not in the first district with all the tourists, that’s for sure.

djp_syd: And San Francisco is a horrible place these days - incredibly expensive, lots of homeless people, incredibly crowded. We were there last in 2008, and my main memory is the $80 parking ticket I got (which my wife insisted on paying). SF used to be quite nice, but I am not interested in going there at all anymore.

California has become a dreadful place, which I will not go to for many reasons. There are many small cities in the US which are much nicer.

Wow, Paul, I didn't know that San Francisco has made up the entirety of California. Given that the state is larger than any European country (unless you're counting the Asian part of Russia as "European") it seems strange that there are no small cities, charming towns, or beautiful rural and scenic areas worth visiting in it.

It is unfortunate that the character of SF has changed a lot in the last two decades, largely due to the lack of affordable housing. (A bit more of a pressing matter than a parking ticket.) However much of those problems aren't going to be readily observable to the tourist, aside from the large homeless population, which has been a problem in SF since well before the original tech boom of the late 90s and resulting housing crisis. It's simply worse now than it was previously.

However if you ask the average European where they loved most in the US, or where they most want to travel to, the answer is almost invariably "San Francisco".

And just to add, I'd give my right arm to live in Vienna. A truly underrated city with a great youth scene, it's just not in the main tourist district.

Yes, San Francisco is IMHO the most beautiful city in the USA but lately it became more seedy. Portland, OR used to be very nice city but last time I was there I did not feel safe. Homeless camping everywhere, even on stops of MAX (public transport). Garbage, litter, simply impression of seedy city. I am afraid Seattle is getting there. On the other hand I remember New York of the late eighties. Very seedy. Then I was there again in 1998. Unrecognizable. So much cleaner. Just few homeless. I felt safe in subway even at night. So go figure. Something must have been done right in NY and wrong in SF, P, S.

I just clicked the link the OP provided. I don't see a list of the 231 cities. What am I missing? Thanks.

True. I don't see it either.

The posts prove the point; the best is based on value judgments and perceptions of reality. Still interesting for discussion. Thank you Ilja

As I cruised down a side street in our little town today the Pacific Ocean came into view. Then I turned into lush pine forest and saw an elk, I thought what a marvelous secret this town of 10000 souls and that I could live without the opera, I think.

Continental,

The link seems to work fine for me. Which Browser are you using?

However if you ask the average European where they loved most in the US, or where they most want to travel to, the answer is almost invariably "San Francisco".

I'd agree, San Francisco does have an allure which stems from, I believe, American TV. I was decidedly unimpressed with SF, I felt it didn't have a lot to offer for tourists, it was run down and tired in many places and there was a general pervasive sense of trouble brewing. I travelled a lot on local buses and there was a palpable sense of uneasiness from people, difficult to put my finger on it.

I've yet to find an American city that I've really liked, Austin and New York probably comes the closest. My favourite parts of the US have been the small towns we've stayed in close to the national parks that we've visited.

And just to add, I'd give my right arm to live in Vienna. A truly
underrated city with a great youth scene, it's just not in the main
tourist district.

Internationally Vienna is a very underrated city, also on this board. Which I find quite interesting, since the city is highly rated in the German- speaking world.

Martin, I'm happy to keep it that way.

JC - Well, every European I know who has visited San Francisco as a tourist apparently disagrees because I have heard nothing but raves, and that includes from recent visits. But I'm not surprised you got a sense of unease riding MUNI, that's just par for the course.

I love to visit San Francisco. Great city. But with a crime rate twice that of NYC, homeless making the parks useless as parks, the cost of living, miserable school system, etc.; from my point of view it's not a particullarly "livable" city unless you are so wealthy that you can isolate yourself from reality. Or at least, in my eyes, it doesn't represent the sort of place I would be comfortable in as a home. I read a similar list once and the results so surprised me that I went digging till I could find the matrix the results were based on. In that instance left leaning values were norm and any conservative values were deviations from the norm. That's fine and good, but with something so subjective you must have the matrix before you can understand the results.

JC - Well, every European I know who has visited San Francisco as a tourist apparently disagrees because I have heard nothing but raves, and that includes from recent visits.

That's the beauty of subjective tastes! A couple who are friends of my wife are currently in Hawaii, they love it there however they spent a few days in SF prior and hated it. I didn't hate it but I certainly failed to see why people love it so much. Perhaps because for many Europeans it's a long and expensive way to go that they feel they should like it, or at least tell their friends they did!

The purpose of this list is to inform companies of a hardship rating for relocating staff. It looks at objective factors that influence a level of hardship.

Explain "hardship"

I think James E is cross because Budapest was not named in the first 30.

So, SF is one of the best places to live because no one can afford housing? Now I understand. Maybe Budapest only ranked 76 because it has 1/4th the crime rate of SF and affordable housing?

Wait! Maybe it gives a lot of weight to the political ideology of the citizens! Nope, that's not it as both Vienna and Budapest had their ultra right wing presidental candidate win about 1/3rd of the vote and as a whole both countries gave their ultra right guy about 49 percent of their vote.

Norma, given the cities at the top, I feel more comfortable with Budapest in the top 20% and might be happier if it were in the bottom 20% of the 450 cities listed.

But if you read the survey footnotes it says this has nothing to do with tourism so as a tourist I will continue to enjoy SF and Vienna. Both beautiful cities for a short visit.

I would be more comfortable with a survey that just considered cost of living. safety and infrastructure.

James - international companies and organizations adjust salaries and other benefits based on documented hardship. I lived in West Africa for years which was an extreme hardship location. Vienna is the exact opposite.

Per Mercer - "Factors such as climate, disease and sanitation standards, ease of communications, and physical remoteness can often affect the success of a foreign assignment. Moreover, the local political and social environment, political violence, and crime may give rise to potentially uncomfortable, inconvenient, or even dangerous situations. To encourage mobility, reliable information is needed to help calculate fair, consistent expatriate compensation for hardship locations.

The total index is based on the following categories:

Consumer goods
Economic environment
Housing
Medical and health considerations
Natural environment
Political and social environment
Public services and transport
Recreation
Schools and education
Socio-cultural environment"

Again, this study is for those relocating to a country not for a tourists.

Thank you Emily. That still doesnt answer the question of how a city like San Francisco can get lumped into the same group as Vienna? Using your list (don't get me wrong, i like SF, i am just trying to figure out this ranking list)

Consumer goods

8.5% sales tax and box stores sitting on very, very expensive property. The consumer cost index for SF is significantly higher than say, Dallas or Kansas City or Austin.

Economic environment

California has slipped from 4th best economy to 35th in the US.

Housing

Everyone here says most Americans cant afford housing in SF

Medical and health considerations

I'm going to guess its very good. Since the only people who can afford housing in the city are very wealthy, my guess is good health care is available ... at a cost.

Natural environment

Okay, the Bay area is stunningly beautiful.

Political and social environment

Politically must mean Liberal or Conservative? Because political stability is generally consistent across the US. Social Environment? If you eliminate the worst at the two extremes of the spectrum, i suspect that the US is pretty consistent in this category too. Although I might suggest that SF represents one of the two extremes. Given the other factors in Emily's list contain some real negative results, i am going to guess that this factor is very heavily weighted in the score and is very biased towards one end of the spectrum as well.

Public services and transport

Good to Very Good from what little i know. Public transportation is better than most cities, but how many of the wealthy that can afford the otherwise unaffordable housing use the system. Maybe the system serves a good purpose of bring in day labor from outside SF for the lower income jobs.

Recreation

Outside of SF, excellent. Inside the city its getting a little seedy.

Schools and education

Public education in SF is nothing to be proud of.

Socio-cultural environment"

See note at Political and social environment. I found some interesting data that SF is getting whiter each year. The only other ethnicity that is growing in numbers is Asian; hispanics and blacks are leaving in large numbers. Also, sort of odd, the city is getting more male. I live in an incredibly diverse city and it adds so much to the culture that its a shame for SF to be loosing that opportunity.

California has slipped from 4th best economy to 35th in the US.

California has the 6-7th largest economy in the world so I'm curious as to what measure this is by

I'm a little defensive regarding CA in general and the Bay Area in particular but it's obvious that SF has major problems (again: housing crisis, I'm basically an economic refugee from the Bay Area as a result) but the CA economy is strong, despite the insane housing costs of a few metro areas of CA (which is much more than it's metro areas, and I'd encourage visitors to explore those areas, because they're amazing and don't have the problems that SF has. If anyone ever wants information on visiting Sonoma/Mendocino counties "through the back door" feel free to PM me)

Sarah, size and performance are different issues and even with performance there are so many ways to measure it someone could argue just about any point of view. I actually love the Bay Area, I'm just pointing out some interesting questions one could raise about the survey results. As for CA in general, it's a beautiful state full of good people doing good things. This is sort of anecdotal, but if the Bay Area is such a good place to live, why are they moving to Austin, Texas by the thousands?

James, they are moving to Texas because of much cheaper homes. Besides, Austin, considering that it's in Texas is quite liberal. Now, why are houses so expensive in Bay area or Seattle and so? Because it's so much beauty around and climate is bearable. Now, why are houses so cheap in Texas? I think my answer is not needed. Everybody knows.

James, it's because no one can afford to live in the Bay Area anymore. I think I've said the words "housing crisis" in every single post I've written. I also just joked (but it's not really a joke) that I'm an "economic refugee". I can afford to live in the most expensive city in Germany (suck it, Munich) but I cannot afford to return to my home in the Bay Area. Clearly, there are problems. I used to have dozens of friends living in SF when I was in my 20s. Now in my late 30s, all have fled for the East Bay, or other cities in the west. People want to own homes and have families and that's not realistic in SF if you're making less than a quarter million anymore. Sad, but true.

None of this has anything to do with the rankings that this group puts out about quality of life in cities, an index used by companies to consider compensation packages and decisions with regards to recruiting strategies.

Nor does it have anything to do with whether SF is a desirable tourist destination, particularly for foreign tourists, which it obviously still is. Those were the two specific things I was addressing, not politics. But if we're going to get into politics...

Now that the incredibly sane and good housing bill won't make it through the state assembly, I'm just awaiting the horrific Hawyard fault earthquake that will be the only thing that will drive housing prices down, since the socialists and NIMBYs have decided that exacerbating California's existing problems is the sane and correct approach. Or I'll just apply for refugee status in Germany because throws hands up in air

We were discussing the rankings published by Mercer. I was just trying to figure out the logic. But you have convinced me. SF is the best place to live in the US.

I bet a lot of that is true. CA is no longer hospitable to simple folks. But, there are miles and miles of neighborhoods in the suburbs of Austin that are nothing but mansions on huge lots; the majority of which are owned by CA economic refugees. Apparently the mansion cost about what they could sell their modest home in CA for.

I was in San Diego for a conference in late March, saw on the local TV news channel figures on how many people from San Diego County in 2017 left the county and how many from CA in 2017 left the state. I don't blame them for leaving CA especially the Bay Area. The CA "economic refugees" going to Austin will help to translate population increase into political terms, ie, electoral votes. There is no doubt that Texas is gaining in population whereas CA is losing. CA is still no. 1 in electoral votes...will it last and be surpassed by Texas?

When I'm on vacation be it a week-end or as long as three months as was the case in 1971 in Europe, 67 days the second longest in Europe in 2009, I never miss SF. True, tons of tourists, domestic or international, flock here. See that in the international terminal at SFO.

Merkel copied the Texas mass migration policy. for Germany.

Another interesting survey that was just released is the Hippest City rankings, and San Francisco did make the list at #15 - https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/travel/brighton-has-been-named-the-top-hipster-city-in-the-world-a3816006.html .

Unfortunately Canada didn't rank as highly on the "Hipster" scale, with Victoria at #88, Kelowna at #114 and Vancouver at #199 (that one was surprising - I thought it would be higher).

Continental,

The link seems to work fine for me. Which Browser are you using?

I clicked the link the OP provided in both Safari and Chrome. Where in that article did you see a list of all 231 cities ranked? Please show me. Thanks so much!

Sarah: Yes, SF as well as CA as a whole have gone down, down, down in recent years. I went there frequently as a kid to my grandparents in SD. I visited off and on over the years. Every time I go, I find less of interest and more to repel me. Yosemite, Muir Grove, the other parks are still worth visiting. I am a huge fan of the LaBrea Tar pits and the museum in LA. The rest: Meh.

I still enjoy CO, AZ, NV, UT, NM. I'd love to live in Albequerque or N NM. But never in LA or SF. And the wine country has become very touristic, and very expensive. I remember going there in the 70s, and there were free tastings, or at least inexpensive ones. Now? $16 for a tasting of 4 wines. Over the top.

" I still enjoy CO, AZ, NV, UT, NM"

Scrabble?

The link seems to work fine for me.

Yes, there is nothing wrong with the link. But it does not point anywhere that includes the full list of the 231 cities. That is what we are interested in seeing.

Postal abbreviations. So much more concise than the full name. If you are US, you probably know them. If not, they are Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Arizona, Colorado. All great western states that I have been to many times.

Clickbait. Next year, the same people will nominate a whole new set of cities, just to draw eyeballs to whatever it is they're advertising.

Some people find it fun to do this stuff. It says a lot though when, as is often the case, this year's 'best city' will be next year's worst/most expensive/most crowded/whatever.

Edmonds, WA is pretty nice...just ask RS !

Steves_8 - you’re off the mark, this is not clickbait. This is a HR professional resource and Mercer is a legitimate source. The list only slightly changes each year.

Paul: You seem to have missed the point that I was mocking your reductive take on the giant and diverse state of California.

The fact that you're just showing out some of the overcrowded touristy places as the "good" parts of California show that you don't really know the state at all. Your wine country comment is telling. Good wines are made in huge portions of the state where you can taste for free, but you're judging based on Napa? LOL. Try the Anderson valley sometime. Or better yet, don't.

Meanwhile I've lived in South Dakota for five summers, working in the tourist industry there. But I'm polite enough not to share what I think of THAT state, particularly the eastern part.

Thanks, James for the great post.

I have lived in Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Arizona and Texas in the USA as well as Augsburg, Germany and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Further, I have traveled to 76 countries in the World.

Living in Germany was far different from visiting there as a tourist. Augsburg is very nice and I loved a lot of things about Germany, but the climate was not one of them. Sorry, but Vienna and Prague would have the same problem. Also, living somewhere you aren't touring all the time, few people can afford to tour 365 days a year and most probably would not want to do so.

Aside from the climate, you must consider issues like language, the cost of living, available housing as major factors.

When I lived in Germany, I was a civilian employee of the US Army and had the benefit of an American Community with a Commissary and Post Exchange which made groceries, clothes and other items far cheaper than what was on the local market. Living in Vienna or Germany now, without those benefits would require a higher expense. I know what it takes to purchase an automobile and drive as a resident in Germany and that would be another negative.

Taxes, my income is from my retirement, would I be taxed in a foreign country? Perhaps not, if so, forget it.

My favorite countries in Europe are Italy, Portugal and Great Britain. Becasues of the climate, I would have to go with either Italy or Portugal. Still, I love living where I am right now on Saint Simons Island, Georgia. My taxes are low, the cost of living is relatively low and I can fly anywhere in the World a couple of times a year and enjoy a different place.

Extending living in a place like Vienna would allow us to visit nearby places, but, guess what, I have already been to most of those places.

geovagriffith, people are obviously different. I stayed long enough in Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, Arizona, Texas, Germany (but not in Augsburg) and I lived in Vienna and Prague (among others). I haven't been to Riyadh and it's not on my list. Everybody knows that it has a similar climate like Death Valley, California. IMHO climate sucks in all states you named: GA, VA, MD, AZ, TX - either hot and humid or unbearably hot. Regarding climate Germany (Augsburg), Prague and Vienna are incomparably better for living. True - certain things are more expensive in Europe (not everywhere in Europe) than here. Houses and rents are roughly comparable, property taxes are much lower in Europe, cars and gas quite more expensive but in most cases not really needed. But healthcare is practically free for everybody. And retirees pay no premiums, no copayment, no deductible. Medical drugs in this country comparing to Europe are outrageously overpriced. For many retirees in this country despite having Medicare these expenses sometimes vacuum half or more of their Social Security income. By the way Social Security income is not taxed there. Their retiree citizens are not taxed either. But of course if you live there Uncle Sam will tax your Social Security regardless. Because of many factors considered - climate, cost of living, healthcare including probability to be shot so many European (and other continent) cities were judged as more livable than American cities.

Now, why are houses so expensive in Bay area or Seattle and so? Because it's so much beauty around and climate is bearable.

Also because you're talking a large metro area wedged in between an ocean and a mountain range that is rough enough to not allow for high density development on its slopes. Los Angeles and Vancouver have similar geographic restraints. Housing costs are pushed up in Miami because the metro is on a fairly narrow relatively dry strip of land between the ocean and the giant swamp.

The politics rankings on these sorts of things tend to involve questions like 'are elections free and fair?' 'do opposition media outlets operate without government interference?' 'are opposition and minority viewpoints and parties welcomed into the debate or seen as things that must be squashed like bugs?' 'does the government attempt to censor internet activities?' Some of these things like the number of dead journalists are reasonably easy to collect data about.

Climate is recently becoming one of deciding factors where we want to live because of global climate change (global warming). Most European unlike American cities have still bearable climate. And politics? Now with Trump era seems that Europe is getting advantage. And dead journalists? US (despite Trump) is not there yet (and let's hope never will be). And not too many people want to move to Russia. Not to get some inspiration for our country we have to watch relationship Trump - Putin with hawkish eye.