Best places to live - in Europe and the rest of the world

My condolences to the good people of Zurich.

The worst thing that can happen to you is to have some idiot magazine writer name your home town as the best place to live (or work or eat or fall in love or etc.).

A couple years later, suddently the traffic is miserable, a cup of coffee is $10, it costs $2 million to buy a run-down shack, the streets are filled with pretentious new-arrivals whining endlessly about the weather, and everything that made your home town what it was has now been replaced by cookie-cutter corporate storefronts. Congratulations, you now live in a "world class city" - no need to feel insecure anymore!

For the good people of Zurich, coffee is already likely $10 a cup. According to the same company that ranked it number one as the world's best place to live (???), it was also ranked the ninth most expensive on the globe. Geneva, which placed second, was the seventh most expensive city. Don't forget, this is a list compiled by a consulting company who advises firms on compensation for their overseas employees. And the survey is conducted among expatriate workers, not locals and not "visitors,"...people who, presumeably, are paid enough so the cost of things like food and restaurants are not a big concern. Add in the daily living expenses that most of us have to consider, and Zurich's ranking would drop like a stone.

I was going to say much the same about Honolulu -- how could it be the "best" place in the US when traffic and cost of living are so horrible that even people born there find themselves forced to move to the mainland because they can't afford to live there? I never pay too much attention to these kinds of things, anyway. The things that would make a place "best" for me aren't things that they measure for their list.

I like Germany, but I do not know why Frankfurt is at a high position in that list. All of those 20 cities are big cities. I would not want to be a resident in any big city. People who like being a resident in a big city like the conveniences : they can walk to good restaurants from their apartment. Thus, I guess some of the criteria for selecting the best cities is the number of conveniences in a city. But if a city has conveniences, does that mean it really has the best "quality of life". In some of those ratings of best places, the criteria is statistical information, including amounts of money spent on public schools. Thus, a city that rates high could be a place that people do not really like being at.

It seems to me that the best place to live would have reasonable cost of living, safety, climate, family/friends nearby and relatively easy access to an airport. Then you can travel to experience what is deemed the "best" about other places - history, art, food, mountains, oceans, whatever. I would rather experience lots of "bests" that way than live in an expensive, though awesome, place that would limit the $ available for travel. Although, the thought of a home on the Mediterranean (my idea of the "best" place to live) does tempt me to consider eating macaroni and cheese for the rest of my life if it would help me afford it.

On any of these, the outcome is decided by what factors are measured, how they are measured and what value you give to them.

For example, if taxpayer funded healthcare is used as the measure of health, you will get one result. If longevity is used it is a somewhat different result.

If you measured violent crime only, Honolulu wouldn't compare favorably to Amsterdam. If you measure all crime, both Honolulu and Amsterdam do poorly.

If you measure education by spending on public schools, no place would score higher than Washington DC. Living in DC, however, means you must budget for private schools, public schools aren't even an option.

I've been to both Frankfurt and Sydney. I could see Sydney being rated down for lack of good transportation. Franfurt is great for transportation, Sydney is like San Diego without freeways. If I had to choose where to live, however, I would pick Sydney over Frankfurt but probably San Diego over both.

honolulu? hawaii, for the locals who actually live there, has an astronomical cost of living with a high rate of unemployment and a failing school system. i'm forced to question the poll. Did they mention the criteria for evaluation?

This stuff is always somewhat silly..but just for grins can anybody honestly say that Dusseldorf is a "better place to live" than Santa Barbara? And if that is the case, why isn't the average price of the homes in Dusseldorf as high as Santa Barbara? There also appears to be a bias against France...not one listing. You'd think with so many people spending big bucks to visit, at least one city would make the list. Just asking.

As further proof about the anti French bias (don't get me started about the anti Italian Bias...clearly they've been snubbed as well), note that of the 3 Canadian cities included on the list, Montreal and Quebec are noticeably absent. Also note that 8 of the 20 are German speaking countries.....Andreas, something smells here and it's not the hand kasse mit musik. ;-)

Bill, this is taken from the US-American financial news website of Yahoo. Had I not found it odd I wouldn't have posted it on here. But Geneva, Brussels and Luxembourg are (at least partially) French speaking. You need to read the full article, where it says: "Consultants rated each city on a variety of factors including the level of traffic congestion, air quality, and personal safety reported by expatriates living in more than 600 cities worldwide."A bit further down they admit: "Still, Mercer acknowledges that cities with a high quality of life are not necessarily the most exciting. "There are a lot of 'sleepy' towns that got high ratings," said Rebecca Powers, a principal consultant in human capital for the company. "But if you were to judge them on something like nightlife, there are some that probably wouldn't have rated as high.""

These lists always have huge cities... my top place to live would be Montreal, France or Chateauneuf-en- Auxious. They are in Burgundy and one is on the Burgundy canal.

Andreas, Sydney has a bridge and an opera house, but Melbourne has by far a better lifestyle, cafe culture, shopping, dining etc etc. The Melbourne politicians were devestated upon reading that list. But hey! Always lists, always differnt results. Home is where the heart is I suppose.

Santa Barbara vs Dusseldorf.

I'd give Dusseldorf the advantage in being able to find a good job and being able to buy a home.

Santa Barbara shut down all development so you can only buy an existing home.

I'd give Santa Barbara the edge on better weather.

Dusseldorf has more cultural activities unless you ignore the commute into LA.

Although Santa Barbara has an ocean, it doesn't have any waves worth surfing, Dusseldorf has no ocean or waves.

If someone was going to give me a home and my retirement income was set, I'd pick Santa Barbara. If I still had to buy a home and make a living, I'd take Dusseldorf.

Andreas...I did read the entire article, I was just having fun with the topic...I thought I made it clear in my first sentence, but I guess my Monte Python riff wasn't very good....but I did think my observation about 8 of the 20 destinations are german speaking was insightful...what I didn't mention was that 7 of the remaining 12 cities are english speaking, even without a single US city...don't know what it means...just an observation. And Brad, just go north of SB about 10 -15 miles for some great surfing. I went to UCSB and believe me there was no shortage of surfing from our perspective.