I don't know when we'll update this. Covid has thrown everything for a loop. We might just discontinue it. Rankings like this become a political game at some point, even if they originally started as an effort at an objective ranking. What's particularly strange is that these cities are downright hostile to the middle class. How many normal people are buying an apartment in Vancouver or Zurich nowadays, let alone a single-family house. There's a case to be made that Columbus, Ohio is a better place to live for a normal person than any of these places.
Um... There are no American cities here. I'm not saying the United States is better than everyone, because every country has its flaws and weaknesses. However, American cities need to be on here. I truly do believe our citizens are the happiest.
San Francisco is the highest American city on the list, which makes me think the entire list is probably flawed. The average 2-bedroom apartment in San Francisco rents for over $4000/month, making it completely unlivable for 80% of people.
I don't see how San Francisco could be the most "livable" American city when there are so many nicer ones all over the country. It's insanely expensive, property crime is off the charts, the streets are filthy. I used to visit there quite often but it's not as much fun anymore.
Given the caliber of individual who feel the urge to respond to some of my comments on this website I feel like Quizmaster's prohibition on ad hominem attacks is draconian, onerous, and unreasonable.
agreed, after i tried three of the top 10 most liveable cities that i knew for a fact were top 10, and 2 of them appeared outside, i ragequit cause this quiz is plain wrong!
It would be interesting to see new 2017 data. Violence and rape is out of control in many EU countries now, and I'm pretty sure all German cities will lose their place on this list. If it's not safe for women to go outside alone, I don't think it should qualify as a "livable city"
I spread out my media consumption so I can get a bigger picture of what's going on in the world. I do avoid blatant propaganda outlets like Huffington Post and CNN though. I stick to more fact-based reporting.
@TinklePork "Violence and rape are out of control in many EU countries now"?????
I don't know what news reports you have been reading but in all my time on Jetpunk, that is the biggest load of complete and utter BS I have ever heard. Europe isn't perfect, nowhere is, but your statement is just plain wrong.
Zurich more liveable than Bern? That‘s surprising! Bern is smaller, doesn‘t has aircraft noise, isn‘t as overcrowded is Zurich and everything is a bit less expensive. Proud to be a Bernese!
Same here. I don't see auckland as more livable than Wellington except perhaps the climate and some activities or sights, but in terms of most livable I would say Wellington is better than Auckland.
Having lived many years in both Wellington and Auckland, I would say... Wellington is more livable, because of better transport. However both are pretty good cities! And Auckland has nicer beaches and climate. But you can't beat Wellington on a good day! :-)
Nobody pays attention to Latin America, so we will never see cities like Montevideo, Buenos Aires or even a big brazilian city in these lists. Mostly Montevideo, which provides the europeans with a similar but not so strong climate and a much less chaotic lifestyle, with some cool and again, not so strong, cultural differences.
As far as I can see this is an "expat rating" - hence based on the living conditions for a (foreign) family. It's not about fun places to visit for a week or two. I had a brief look at Mercer's documentation. They weigh heavily factors such as air pollution, availability of public transport and affordable schools and health care. That's why you get a bunch of medium-sized German cities on the list, but not a single British one. In Britain, unlike Germany, you have to pay for tertiary education and you have to pay through the nose for public transport.
Now all of a sudden, Cologne/Düsseldorf isn't considered 1 agglomeration, like in all other jetpunk quizzes? I typed in Cologne and I see Düsseldorf standing between the answers... (I know they are separate cities but in jetpunk quizzes, they are normally considered 1 metropole)
For the purpose of the Mercer list, in some cases it makes more sense to count individual cities rather than whole metropolitan areas. At least one thing they get right.
Huh... I wasn't really expecting to see Vancouver here, this is coming from someone who lives there. Housing market is terrible, unless you happen to be a millionaire, and renting isn't even a great alternative because it costs an arm and a leg. But, I guess the fact that we're #5 on the list, and the highest Canadian city shows that we're at least doing something right?
Interesting quiz. Metropolis Magazine conducted a similar survey in 2017 - See my quiz: "10 Best Cities of the World to Live In". They concentrated on housing, transportation, sustainability, and culture. Three cities on their top-10 list are missing from this one completely, namely Helsinki, Oslo, and Portland OR.. Well, there are about a zillion ways to conduct a survey like these:))
I have been to lots of these cities and all of them are nice but I still don't understand why there are no Japanese cities on here. For me Tokyo will be the best city there is! Also I expected Seoul.
Never been to Tokyo or Seoul but from photos I assume that the possibilities for local recreation are just lower than, e.g., in Munich. I mean, the accumulated key criteria for this list are wealth, culture, and recreation/health. Wealth and culture are at a great level for most westernised metropoles, thus recreation is the deal-breaker for the top of the list. And in this category, IMHO a 10mio+ city can just not compete with smaller, but nevertheless wealthy cities.
Please be a bit more precise with your objection. Is it aiming on Tokyo/Seoul or the general conclusion? As said, I have never been in Tokyo/Seoul. I might be wrong on the possible level of recreation in those cities.
Yes you're totally wrong about that and I'm puzzled as to why you would even think to draw a conclusion based on photos. What photos? Tokyo and Seoul are two of the most vibrant cities I've ever visited or lived in with plenty of things to see and do. What entertainment do you think Munich has that Tokyo lacks? Oktoberfest? People in Seoul go out drinking all night, every night, if that's what you fancy. If anything these cities have much more to offer in terms of entertainment venues and options than your average European city does.
The Mercer rankings have 39 factors grouped into 10 categories. The 7th category is "Recreation" and includes "restaurants, theaters, cinemas, sports and leisure, etc." As for restaurants, Tokyo restaurants have 304 Michelin stars, blowing away the closest European city (Paris, with 134). Munich has fewer than 20. Tokyo and Seoul both have great, world class cinemas. Most European cities have nothing that compares.
First of all, I used "recreation" in a broader context, in particular with respect to "recreation in nature". You are right that Mercer does not list this a separate category but it is partially included in "4. Air pollution", "7. Sport and leisure", and proabably also in "7. (recreation) etc.". "Recreation in nature" highly correlates with the amount of trees you can find on a photo. Shinjuku Central Park in Tokyo or Hyde Park in London are nice for a short walk after your job but it is not recommended for week-end recreation like hiking tours, bike tours, relaxing at a lake (at least not for 5mio people simultaneously)...For many European cities on this list you can go to rural regions within less than one hour and often even without using a car. Again I highly expect that this is not possible in Tokyo.
Second, who cares about the number of Michelin restaurants? Most people on Earth will never visit even one of those restaurants! And talking about entertainment venues, who cares if there are 2000 or only 200 nice bars in the city? Further, e.g. the theatre/opera density of central Europa is unmatched. Tokyo, NYC, etc. are probably comparable with (small) Vienna, but not beyond.
Using Michelin stars in comparison of Tokyo and Paris doesn't really make any sense, Tokyo has what, 7 times the population of Paris? As for your other notes though, TheLastFish seems terribly misinformed. Seoul and Tokyo are world class cities in regards to recreation.
I should not further judge this until I have visited those cities. Nevertheless, I wonder if we talk from completely different things. Just to make it clear again, I talk about stuff like the amount of trees within a distance of 10km from the city center.
I wonder what will happen in future when the EU gets converted to the "United States of Europe". Propably everybody will then sloppily call its citizens "the Europeans", annoying the Swiss, the Russians, and maybe even the British and Northern Irish! :-D
And some specialists will explain us: "West Eurasia is a continent, Europe is a country. Zurich is Swiss."
Fish: they actually already do this. I get asked all the time at customs about how much time I've spent "in Europe"... by which they always mean the European Union... I'll start explaining that there are other parts of Europe not in the EU and not in the Schengen Area and their question is inherently stupid but I've learned it's better just to anticipate the fallacy.
Thing is the EU has been around less than 30 years. and referring to the EU as Europe creates confusion as there is a continent by the same name. The popular convention Ander refers to has been near universally understood since before any of us were born, annoying nobody until very recently. The only confusion in creates is feigned, as there is no continent called America. Calling the USA "America" should be as controversial as calling the United States of Mexico "Mexico"... but of course... it isn't. And we all know why though some of us pretend not to.
I confirm that this sloppy nomenclature is commonly convenient also for non-US-Americans (as I do as well). (Although at least in German it is more limited to the US-citizens and associated adjective only. The country is typically called "USA" or "Vereinigte Staaten".) Nevertheless, the sloppy use of this term does not mean it is correct. America is first of all a supercontinent such as Eurasia. I see three ways how to think on why US-citizen (and others) persist calling their country "America". 1) They just don't care/think this is indeed unambigous. 2) There is a deep unconsious (or consious) attitude towards a pan-American imperialism (as backed by the past history and present power). 3) There is just no convenient "euphonic" alternative. E.g., "US-Americans" would semantically imply that the "people" of the USA is just a subfaction of the "pan-American people", "literally" constraining the sovereignty of the USA.
America is not a continent to the large majority of people in the world. Your odd use of "America" to represent a supercontinent is not any more correct than the more common "North America" and "South America." Language is a tool to convey meaning. If a word is commonly used to mean something and commonly understood to mean that thing, then that word is an effective component of language. The ONLY reason that Americans, and the vast overwhelming majority of all humans on Earth, call America America is because that's what most people have been using that word to mean since the 19th century. It has zilch to do with imperialism. It's just convention. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that convention. The problems people have with it are manufactured and date back to... about 6 years ago.
The actual term "America" has been created in order to give the continent South America a name. Further, we learned in school that the vikings (re-)discovered "America" (Canada!) as well as that Colombus again re-discovered "America" (Bahamas!). THAT is the convention which all humans on Earth agree on since 500 years. The USA are virtually one of the last country in the Americas which has been considered to be a part of "America". Nevertheless, the majority of humans (including myself) may sloppily use this term not only for the continent but also for USA. But you will find hardly any person outside USA who denies that America is (also) a (super-)continent. At least nobody who visited history or geography lesson.
I've never found one who didn't recognize that America was a country and not a continent and I've worked as an educator on four continents and had conversations on this subject with people in each. (or... 2... I guess... if you only count "super continents")
A correspondent for the Irish Times offers some clever and snarky insight into Mercer's questionable metrics: "Closer examination confirms, of course, that Mercer has a particular purpose in mind. The chart has been compiled to 'help multinational companies and other employers fairly compensate employees when placing them on international assignments'. In other words, the survey is assessing cities in terms of how they suit people who drive Saabs and spend evenings in golf clubs. Such employers are required to hand over cash if the destination city is just a little bit too funky or a tad too much at home to cultural innovation. You don’t want hip-hop crews keeping you awake when you’re preparing for that conference call to Boggs & Baloney. The corporate avenger requires a quiet, bland environment that can be slipped into and slid out of as comfortably as he or she might annihilate a passing lame duck."
It makes sense to lump the two together in agglomeration quizzes. However, they are still distinct cities. Cologne as well as the cities from the Ruhr Area would likely rank significantly lower than Düsseldorf in any list that measures livability.
Interesting to see something as small as Luxembourg City on the list. It's not really much of a city, is it? Among cities that small, Salzburg seemed pretty livable to me.
Is this comment racist? Are we still pretending that this word has explicitly racist overtones because Donald Trump said it? even though nobody ever thought it did before
This feels so random, if one city is on here, why not the city a few kilometers away which is nearly the same in every way. I know in big countries like china there can be a lot of difference in quality of living per city even ones that are in the same area. But for for (western) europe, things are much closer together and not much difference.
For instance, if amsterdam is on here, why not the rest of the major cities in the country? (and major only because there is more transportation and entertainment there. Other standards of living is are generally the same throughout the country. The flip side of big cities is housing though, one of the criteria, it is very scarce in big cities and ludicrous prices, so that would take the scores down again_
I know this may sound biased given I'm from Melbourne and my family is from Vienna, but they are the top two most livable cities in the world, Vienna having overtaken Melbourne in 2018. Search up 'Most Livable City 2020.' First result.
Have the people that put Melbourne on this list ever lived there and experienced the weather? As I write this it's bitterly cold, pissing rain and windy as the bowels of Hell.
Not surprised at all by these results. Of course Canada and Europe top the list with the most liveable cities and of course America doesn't make the list at all. I mean how can you have a liveable city when you have no universal health care and are always worried about being shot?
This is one of the most arbitrary, silliest quizzes I think I've ever taken on Jetpunk. Not a single US or UK city, but you're gonna include Singapore. Guess no gay people who believe they're worthy of the right to marry were consulted for that one lol. Come on. Do better Jetpunk.
Speaking as someone regularly travelling all over Europe and having male and female friends living in many places in Germany and elsewhere ...
I don't know what news reports you have been reading but in all my time on Jetpunk, that is the biggest load of complete and utter BS I have ever heard. Europe isn't perfect, nowhere is, but your statement is just plain wrong.
The Mercer rankings have 39 factors grouped into 10 categories. The 7th category is "Recreation" and includes "restaurants, theaters, cinemas, sports and leisure, etc." As for restaurants, Tokyo restaurants have 304 Michelin stars, blowing away the closest European city (Paris, with 134). Munich has fewer than 20. Tokyo and Seoul both have great, world class cinemas. Most European cities have nothing that compares.
And some specialists will explain us: "West Eurasia is a continent, Europe is a country. Zurich is Swiss."
Thing is the EU has been around less than 30 years. and referring to the EU as Europe creates confusion as there is a continent by the same name. The popular convention Ander refers to has been near universally understood since before any of us were born, annoying nobody until very recently. The only confusion in creates is feigned, as there is no continent called America. Calling the USA "America" should be as controversial as calling the United States of Mexico "Mexico"... but of course... it isn't. And we all know why though some of us pretend not to.
Although can Cologne be counted for Dusseldorf as they are pretty much two in one?
For instance, if amsterdam is on here, why not the rest of the major cities in the country? (and major only because there is more transportation and entertainment there. Other standards of living is are generally the same throughout the country. The flip side of big cities is housing though, one of the criteria, it is very scarce in big cities and ludicrous prices, so that would take the scores down again_
Not lately haha