What city has world's best quality of life?
 

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/04/bu...tml?hpt=ibu_c1

We're in Geneva and frankly....it's been great. No plans to leave. Nice to see Vancouver there. Our home away from home.

Not the one I live in for sure....

How's the gigging in Geneva?

San Francisco has the best quality of life for me, but I have met people that hate it here.

Those places are all fine if you're already set financially.

No city has any kind of good quality of life....

As far as I'm concerned no city has quality of life - based on being a city.
It's like asking which is better a kick in the throat, explosive diarrhea with vomiting or a pitbull and a rabid wolf in your pants.

For you. I'd say "quality of life" is subjective.

Defined: "your personal satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) with the cultural or intellectual conditions under which you live (as distinct from material comfort)"

Quality of Life

I agree that it is subjective. For me having an active live music scene is important; lots of people wouldn't care about that.

I'm not sure I agree with separating material comfort, however. The cost of housing makes a big difference to me. I have to balance cultural and intellectual conditions against the job market and how much it costs to live there.

No city has quality of life? Whoever says that has never spent time in any European cities. Florence, Munich, Paris and Lyon, Barcelona, the list goes on and on of wonderful places where people truly enjoy life while having the conveniences of a city.

Even in the USA there are some pretty good places - Portland, The Keys, Charleston and Charlotte come to mind as decent places with cultural life and moderate costs.

Fresno.

The results are way too heavily European centric, I wouldn't put much stock in the results. Nothing against Europe, but the results are far too imbalanced not to take them with a grain of salt.

I find this kind of research and accompanying story meaningless.

There are people in those cities living a life of horror, and people in Gary Indiana living a very very high quality life.

:D

Detroit!! Lmao...

This list is strange...

For some reason the list Brussels (No22) my hometown and a horrible place to live! But no a sign of London which IMO should definitely at least be in the top 30.

Interesting topic and responses.
Oddly, when I think about the two cities i've lived in most recently (DC and Baltimore) the more impoverished, dangerous
and rougher of the two (Baltimore) is far better when it comes to overall quality of life.
Because for me, it comes down to the people- and Baltimore has far fewer a**holes than DC.

[quote=D.A.R.K.;13534717]Interesting topic and responses.
Oddly, when I think about the two cities i've lived in most recently (DC and Baltimore) the more impoverished, dangerous
and rougher of the two (Baltimore) is far better when it comes to overall quality of life.
Because for me, it comes down to the people- and Baltimore has far fewer a**holes than DC.[/QUOTE]

No politics. :hiding: :p:p:p

This is based solely on the attitude of the general populous,
regardless of political beliefs :hiding:

The best places to me are cities that are large enough to have a few things to do, bringing in some attractions, but aren't so overpopulated that it takes 2 hours to drive through them. Then you live 15-20 minutes outside of said city where it is suburban without also requiring you to sit fo an hour in traffic just to get to the grocery store. Usually that's a city for me with a population of less than 1 million metro, but greater then 500,000. After that, you just pick the geography, culture and climate you are after, and then you can find your perfect place to live most anywhere.