What cities have a high quality of life?

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

There are many very desirable cities in the world but we are talking quality of life and how can a city have a high quality of life when the majority of people can't afford to live there?

Personally, I think cities with a high quality of life are those that offer that quality without having to have a Platinum American Express card to get in. A truly vibrant and livable city is one where people of all socio-economic situations can partake. If, after paying your rent/mortgage you are living cheque to cheque with almost no disposable income, what kind of "quality" of life are you truly experiencing?

No such place exists in the developed world. Where in Europe or NA can you find vibrant and livable and cheap? You'd have to go to Asia, the Middle East or Latin America to find that.

[UrbanRevival]

Once again, cities don't have a high quality-of-life; people have a high quality-of-life.

I know that sounds pedantic, but it's a critical distinction. No one receives a high quality-of-life by virtue of where they live being the only factor or consideration. This is to say nothing of the subjectivity of how something so nebulous like "QOL" is even measured.

As long as there's things like segregation and other disparities/inequities (and differing demographic profiles for cities based on things like industry mix and social class), QOL is fundamentally based on individual experiences and the degree of each person's economic privilege. And no two cities can be realitistically compared (using whatever "QOL" metrics are devised) without considering that context.

[bilbao58]

Originally Posted by mousquet

I wouldn't describe Paris as an easy city to live in in our day and age.

It is expensive, like real estate is some kind of scam all over the metro area.
Of course, there's a lot of pretty things and neighborhoods, but there's also a lot of crime, drug dealing and gang violence that comes along.

I've seen (and personally experienced) a lot of "interesting" things in that city over the many years that I've known it. Staying multiple months at a time is a great way experience a place. Staying in really cheap one-star hotels in sketchy neighborhoods increases the "interestingness." I'd say the most "interesting" time was mid-80s. Holy cow!

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by UrbanRevival

Once again, cities don't have a high quality-of-life; people have a high quality-of-life.

I know that sounds pedantic, but it's a critical distinction. No one receives a high quality-of-life by virtue of where they live being the only factor or consideration. This is to say nothing of the subjectivity of how something so nebulous like "QOL" is even measured.

As long as there's things like segregation end disparities/inequities (and differing demographic profiles for cities based on things like industry mix and social class), QOL is fundamentally based on individual experiences and degree of economic privilege. And no two cities can be realitistically compared (using whatever "QOL" metrics are devised) without considering that context.

It's not only pedantic but it's just plain wrong. There are definitely differences in quality of life between different cities. The weather for starters, or the quality of urban amenities, the food, the culture etc.

If your point is simply that wealthier people enjoy a higher quality of life, then well yeah, that goes without saying...

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by badrunner

No such place exists in the developed world. Where in Europe or NA can you find vibrant and livable and cheap? You'd have to go to Asia, the Middle East or Latin America to find that.

Oh there are some based on that criteria: Lisbon, Porto, Warsaw, Budapest, Bratislava, etc. in Europe.

In North America, it depends on your definitions of these terms, but Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Calgary, Ottawa, Quebec City, etc. might fit the bill.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Oh there are some based on that criteria: Lisbon, Porto, Warsaw, Budapest, Bratislava, etc. in Europe.

In North America, it depends on your definitions of these terms, but Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Calgary, Ottawa, Quebec City, etc. might fit the bill.

Thank you. That's a good list. But I think Lisbon and Porto are being overrun by Americans so it might have to come off that list...

Yeah I was exaggerating a tad bit about no such places existing. I did mention Athens and Rome as possible cities where working class people can have a relatively high quality of life, with good weather, good food, urban culture, and decent social services. Are they better off than the working classes of London and Paris? Possibly, depending on their priorities. It's lower incomes but it's easy living.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Tokyo is the cleanest gigantic city that I have visited. It is the cleanest city of more than 20 million. It is the cleanest city of more than 10 million. It is the cleanest city of more than 5 million. Heck, it might be the cleanest city of more than 2 million. Way cleaner than Calgary, for example.

Paris and New York are awesome cities, but they are not clean cities.

Seoul might be cleaner than Tokyo. Both are definitely cleaner than New York, but they aren't without problems typical of major cities. For instance, in Tokyo I do recall seeing visible homeless, and there were occassionally people sleeping on sidewalks. It was by no means San Francisco, but it does exist there too.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by badrunner

No such place exists in the developed world. Where in Europe or NA can you find vibrant and livable and cheap? You'd have to go to Asia, the Middle East or Latin America to find that.

Europe has a ton of cities that would fit the criteria... Berlin, Lisbon, almost any major city in Italy, much of Spain.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by badrunner

It's not only pedantic but it's just plain wrong. There are definitely differences in quality of life between different cities. The weather for starters, or the quality of urban amenities, the food, the culture etc.

If your point is simply that wealthier people enjoy a higher quality of life, then well yeah, that goes without saying...

But he was right as many things are subjective, including those factors you mentioned.

In fact, that's why we have so many different answers in this thread as each person has its own criteria of what constitutes quality of life, and what things they consider more or less important. And that applies not only for comparisons between different cities but between different neighbourhoods in a same city.

Originally Posted by bilbao58

I've seen (and personally experienced) a lot of "interesting" things in that city over the many years that I've known it. Staying multiple months at a time is a great way experience a place. Staying in really cheap one-star hotels in sketchy neighborhoods increases the "interestingness." I'd say the most "interesting" time was mid-80s. Holy cow!

I definitely like some degree of chaotic urban quality. In fact, that's why I left my previous "perfect", too clean neighbourhood and moved Downtown, with the chaos, social class diversity, thousands of bars and dirty streets.

Clean streets are definitely an objectively good thing, but it's no way a dealbreaker for me.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Yuri

But he was right as many things are subjective,

But his point wasn't that everything is subjective, which is a trite and meaningless observation. His point was that QOL depends on the person as much as the city - an equally trite and meaningless observation.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Europe has a ton of cities that would fit the criteria... Berlin, Lisbon, almost any major city in Italy, much of Spain.

Berlin has relatively low incomes and relatively high rents.

Portugal, Spain and Italy all have quite low incomes. I cannot imagine their primary cities have super cheap rents. Barcelona must be incredibly expensive for someone earning Spanish medians.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by badrunner

It's not only pedantic but it's just plain wrong. There are definitely differences in quality of life between different cities. The weather for starters, or the quality of urban amenities, the food, the culture etc.

This seems to be an argument for individual tastes, not objective differences between cities.

I prefer cloudy weather. Seriously. My quality of life is much higher when I'm not getting more skin cancer, aging, and required to wear sunglasses all day. I don't hate the sun, but it's definitely a negative. That's obviously subjective and personal.

My parents like German food, and don't like Japanese food. But Japanese food is among the most revered foods on earth, while German food is boring boiled/baked Northern European laborer food. Again, personal and subjective.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Berlin has relatively low incomes and relatively high rents.

Portugal, Spain and Italy all have quite low incomes. I cannot imagine their primary cities have super cheap rents. Barcelona must be incredibly expensive for someone earning Spanish medians.

Barcelona is the most expensive city in Spain for sure. Part of that is because it is overrun by tourism that is putting pressure on the housing market. I don't think other cities in Spain, including Madrid, have affordability issues like that, though. Lisbon also gave me the impression that it provided a comfortable cost of living to locals, although I know there has lately been tension because foreigners are pushing up the cost of living.

[Crawford]

I have rich friends, in Austin, TX, who decided to spend the pandemic in Barcelona, just because.

I feel Barcelona draws a lot of people like this, and has a distorted market, really tough for locals.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Crawford

This seems to be an argument for individual tastes, not objective differences between cities.

I prefer cloudy weather. Seriously. My quality of life is much higher when I'm not getting more skin cancer, aging, and required to wear sunglasses all day. I don't hate the sun, but it's definitely a negative. That's obviously subjective and personal.

My parents like German food, and don't like Japanese food. But Japanese food is among the most revered foods on earth, while German food is boring boiled/baked Northern European laborer food. Again, personal and subjective.

It's subjective to a degree. You might subjectively prefer German food to Japanese food, but surely you can objectively tell the difference between good quality German food and bad quality German food? And so it goes for cities too.

[edale]

Originally Posted by AviationGuy

I envy Tokyo. I don't know of any large U.S. cities that I would call clean. E.g., as popular as Austin is, and with one of the best downtowns in the country, it's probably the least clean city I've seen with population of about 1M or more in this country. Part of the issue is homeless camps all over the city, and the garbage that come with them. It's one of the big reasons I moved away.

Austin has one of the best downtowns in the country?! Agree to disagree I suppose...I wouldn't put it in the top 20 in North America tbh.

[edale]

Quality of life is definitely inherently subjective. For me, the 3 things I value most in a city, and that would contribute most to my quality of life, would be:

- Ease of mobility. If it's a transit oriented city, is the transit safe, clean, efficient, and take you where you actually want to go? If it's a car oriented city, is traffic decent enough that you can actually move across the metro area? Is parking generally available?

- Parks, green spaces, and natural beauty. It's important to me to have high quality parks and green spaces available, both small scale neighborhood parks, and larger, more regional destination type parks. I also really appreciate cities that are naturally beautiful. Having some interesting topography, waterways, trees, etc. really make places interesting and contribute to a sense of place.

- Quality of architecture. I really value living in a neighborhood with attractive, historic buildings.


Other people might value having access to certain types of shopping or dining, the quality and level of service available at the local airport(s), affordability, diversity, political leanings, access to the coast, weather/climate, etc. Given that everyone prioritizes these things differently, I don't see how quality of life can be compared. Unless you're in a place that can't provide the basics in terms of safety and infrastructure, it all seems pretty subjective.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

My parents like German food, and don't like Japanese food. But Japanese food is among the most revered foods on earth, while German food is boring boiled/baked Northern European laborer food. Again, personal and subjective.

I have yet to meet a cuisine that I didn't fall in love with.

[Gresto]

With all this talk of subjectivity and objectivity, I have to wonder if any rational person prefers a filthy, run-down, graffiti-covered city to a clean, orderly one. Is it exciting or urban-minded to be surrounded by schmutz? If so, have at it.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Gresto

With all this talk of subjectivity and objectivity, I have to wonder if any rational person prefers a filthy, run-down, graffiti-covered city to a clean, orderly one. Is it exciting or urban-minded to be surrounded by schmutz? If so, have at it.

Too clean > too dirty.

But a place can be too clean (ie. sterile) for my tastes.

the right amount of schmutz can help a place feel more lived-in (ie. character).

Goldilocks was right all along!