World-wide quality of life survey - Swiss & Canadian cities tops

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I wish they'd said more about New Zealand than "Cities in Europe, New Zealand, and Australia continue to rank highly."

I'm particularly curious to know how my native Wellington fared, or if it was even included at all. Odds are, only Auckland was considered, the most un-Kiwi part of the country. :|
 
Axver said:
I wish they'd said more about New Zealand than "Cities in Europe, New Zealand, and Australia continue to rank highly."

I'm particularly curious to know how my native Wellington fared, or if it was even included at all. Odds are, only Auckland was considered, the most un-Kiwi part of the country. :|

You can download the full pdf lists, but to save you time...

On the Top 50 Quality of Living:

Auckland & Sydney tied at 8th (both have dropped from tied at 5th last year)
Melbourne & Wellington tied at 14th (Wellington up one spot from last year, Melbourne down 2 spots)
Perth at 20, Adelaide at 25. Brisbane at 31.

The first US city is San Fran, tied at 25 along with Adelaide. The rest are all Euro/Canadian with only one other US city (Boston) and two Japanese cities featuring at the bottom of the list.

On the Top 50 Cost of Living:

Sydney at 20th, no other Aust/NZ on the list.
 
Earnie Shavers said:


You can download the full pdf lists, but to save you time...

I really am going blind. :banghead:

Thanks! :up:

I'm surprised to see Auckland and Sydney doing the best from NZ and Australia. I definitely would have expected Wellington to top Auckland. Shame it seems like Christchurch didn't get included (I can't see it doing so much worse than Auckland and Wellington that it wouldn't make the rankings if assessed).

I cannot believe Brisbane made it. I believe you were the one who first called it "Australia's cultural black hole" on this forum and you're absolutely right.
 
To the extent these surveys are accurate, shouldn't these cities experience an influx of population?

Or are there unaccounted for roadblocks (immigration laws, cost of living, etc.)?
 
On a somewhat related note, there was also a survey released today by Economist Intelligence ranking cities by cost of living. There were several ties, which apparently confused reporters, so I've yet to see two lists that agree exactly, but anyhow the top 20 were all either European or South/east Asian. In more or less this order the top 15, including ties, were:

Oslo
Tokyo
Reykjavik
Osaka Kobe (Japan)
Paris
Copenhagen
London
Zurich
Geneva
Helsinki
Vienna
Frankfurt
Seoul
Hong Kong
Dublin
Munich
 
Brisbane is a cultural black hole, but you rarely meet people from Brisbane who care about that or even notice. In many ways it is a good 10 years behind Sydney & Melbourne, but if they don't know that, and don't care, they are living happy in Brisbane, no? The old argument: Someone from Brisbane says they could never live in Sydney because of the traffic. The Sydney person says that there is no traffic in Bribane because there is nowhere to go, nothing to do, and that's why they could never live there. Both are happy with where they live.
 
Earnie Shavers said:
Brisbane is a cultural black hole, but you rarely meet people from Brisbane who care about that or even notice. In many ways it is a good 10 years behind Sydney & Melbourne, but if they don't know that, and don't care, they are living happy in Brisbane, no? The old argument: Someone from Brisbane says they could never live in Sydney because of the traffic. The Sydney person says that there is no traffic in Bribane because there is nowhere to go, nothing to do, and that's why they could never live there. Both are happy with where they live.

I'm moving to Brisbane on Friday, and I'm certainly not happy about it (but I'm planning to move to Melbourne in 2007). Most people here can't comprehend what I don't like about Brisbane, the Gold Coast, and southeast Queensland in general. On the other hand, I have a hard time figuring out what there is to like.

And on the traffic front, that's bollocks. The road network here (both Brisbane and the Gold Coast) is utter shite. Whoever designed this should have fireworks shoved up their rear end. There shouldn't be traffic jams but there are because someone was using the "How NOT to design road networks" textbook and overlooked the 'NOT' in the title.
 
Axver said:

And on the traffic front, that's bollocks.

Oh please. I've been in 'heavy traffic' in Brisbane and the G.Coast.... it's nothing. I was on the Gold Coast a few weeks ago and had a cab driver going nuts about the traffic. It was laughable. I strongly defend the fact that Sydney's road design is without any thought whatsoever. None. Zero. It is only designed to relieve pressure on whatever government okays it at the time.
 
Earnie Shavers said:


Oh please. I've been in 'heavy traffic' in Brisbane and the G.Coast.... it's nothing. I was on the Gold Coast a few weeks ago and had a cab driver going nuts about the traffic. It was laughable. I strongly defend the fact that Sydney's road design is without any thought whatsoever. None. Zero. It is only designed to relieve pressure on whatever government okays it at the time.

Well, my point is that 'heavy traffic' by Gold Coast/Brisbane definition shouldn't even exist in the first place. As the saying you posted says, "there is nowhere to go, nothing to do", and if anyone had used a brain to design the bloody road/rail network, it would work efficiently and there'd rarely be much of a hint of heavy traffic.

Instead, they think it's smart to send all through traffic straight into the very centre of Brisbane instead of around it, and the Gold Coast? I can't think of anywhere designed worse, in all aspects. It's just chaotic strip development with no sense of direction or purpose.
 
On the traffic front, I find it funny Sydney and Auckland ranked highest yet both have appauling Road Systems.

Sydney is bareable at say 3am in the morning... just. But it does have a reasonably efficient rail system which does help.

Auckland on the other hand is the second largest city in the world in terms of land size yet has absolutely no public transport system of note to speak of. When I was last there it was utter gridlock from 7am-12pm and then again from 3pm-7pm. I love the place to bits but I am surprised it ranked so high.
 
To be honest, I haven't spent a lot of time in Brisbane, only jetted in and out when absolutely necessary (work, weddings etc), but I agree about the Gold Coasts design. It's just fucking ugly to begin with. I must say the view from the top of that new Q1 is spectacular, but on the ground it's just an awful, awful place. Ruined two decades ago and made worse ever since. They should just completely open it up to gambling like Vegas and just let it be done with. That's it's destiny and we all know it. Some fucking roller coaster and Eiffel Tower replica on the beach. Perfect.

Good book to read: Secret Life of the Gold Coast written by a cynical Sydney based music writer, Brendan Shanahan, who lived there for a few months. If you hate the Gold Coast, you'll love it.
 
timothius said:
On the traffic front, I find it funny Sydney and Auckland ranked highest yet both have appauling Road Systems.

Sydney is bareable at say 3am in the morning... just. But it does have a reasonably efficient rail system which does help.

Auckland on the other hand is the second largest city in the world in terms of land size yet has absolutely no public transport system of note to speak of. When I was last there it was utter gridlock from 7am-12pm and then again from 3pm-7pm. I love the place to bits but I am surprised it ranked so high.

Being an avid railfan, I have been most intrigued to read about the improvements in the commuter rail network ever since Connex took over operations a couple of years ago. The Western line's finally being double-tracked, services are more frequent, a line's being built into the centre of Manukau - all good stuff. Now if only they had the sense to upgrade the Onehunga Branch for passenger traffic and then extend it down to the airport! A line to the North Shore wouldn't go astray either, though a bridge or tunnel would cost a bloody fortune.

It's going to be interesting finding my way around Auckland when I'm there next month. I hope there's a train station within walking distance of Ericsson Stadium.

Earnie Shavers said:
To be honest, I haven't spent a lot of time in Brisbane, only jetted in and out when absolutely necessary (work, weddings etc), but I agree about the Gold Coasts design. It's just fucking ugly to begin with. I must say the view from the top of that new Q1 is spectacular, but on the ground it's just an awful, awful place. Ruined two decades ago and made worse ever since. They should just completely open it up to gambling like Vegas and just let it be done with. That's it's destiny and we all know it. Some fucking roller coaster and Eiffel Tower replica on the beach. Perfect.

Good book to read: Secret Life of the Gold Coast written by a cynical Sydney based music writer, Brendan Shanahan, who lived there for a few months. If you hate the Gold Coast, you'll love it.

I think you just named my next book purchase. :drool: I've lived on the Gold Coast for over eight years now, and with every passing year, hated the place more and more. I haven't even been to Surfer's Paradise in about 4 years - utterly awful, tacky, trashy place.

I just cannot get over how there's no actual direction to the road network here, and that everything is sacrificed in the name of more housing developments and subdivisions. All these narrow, illogical streets winding around ugly houses built too close together just so the maximum amount of suckers can live in this horrid city.

Maybe if drought conditions caused the Hinze Dam to run dry, there would be a mass exodus from the city and it might become liveable? :hmm:
 
Back
Top Bottom