And the best place in the world to live is...
Vienna.
That’s according to Mercer’s hot-off-the-presses 2009 “quality of life” ratings of 215 cities.
Following Vienna, in order, are: Zurich, Geneva, Vancouver, and Auckland.
Paris? 33rd. London? 38th. New York? 49th.
Tops in the U.S.? Honolulu, 28th; San Francisco, 29th; and Boston, 37th.
Worst city in the world to live in? Big surprise: Baghdad.
(Here’s a list of the top 50.)
Of course, such ratings have a huge judgmental element. That is, the data that go into them are real and reasonably reliable, but the real question is what should be measured in the first place. When these ratings are done for U.S., cities, places like Omaha usually dominate the top of the list. Nothing against Omaha, but is that really where you would prefer, in your heart of hearts, to live? (And it’s no coincidence that such ratings tend to be done by places like — you guessed it — the University of Nebraska.) Anyway, here’s some information about what went into Mercer’s ratings.
Comments
Lee the South Dakota native can’t resist snarking at regional rival Nebraska! Omaha is probably nobody’s first choice, but one could to far worse in the US . . .
Posted by: Steve Schier | May 9, 2009 01:28 PM
houston makes the top 50 list for, of all things, infrastructure??!!
nothing else need be said.
Posted by: Joel | May 9, 2009 09:18 PM
May I recommend Winnipeg, Canada’s best unknown mix of big city amenities and small city convenience?
Cost of living? low. Culture? lots. Lakes and beaches? an hour or two away. Economy? even now, our economy is modestly growing, and unemployment is at around 4.6%. Restaurants? about 1,100.
Even the snow has its uses — it keeps the posers away.
/brag
Noni
Posted by: Noni Mausa | May 9, 2009 09:47 PM