FastCompany recently posted a visual ranking of The 10 Happiest Cities In The World. The survey was actually conducted by GfK Custom Research North America. It is based on the interviews of 10,000 people from 29 countries attempting to assess their level of happiness. The criteria included outdoor attractions, culture locations, shopping centres, performances, and amusement.
The world's 10 happiest cities were :
I have to admit that I don't understand how they came up with this ranking. If you look at the scores on the inforgraphic, Paris should come on top, with a total score of 502, against only 113 for Rio.
Then, the criteria seem to bear little relation to what I would associate with happiness. Shopping centres, really ? For young single women with a lot of free time and disposable income, maybe. But for the rest of us ? We live in the age where almost everything can be ordered online. What difference does it make whether you live in a megapolis or in the countryside if you shop online ?
Even performances and cultural activities are reserved for a specific segment of society. I am an intellectual and I have an artistic side, but I never feel the need go to the theatre (except if one means cinema), to a concert (I prefer listening to music at home), to an art gallery or museum (except if I am sightseeing while travelling, but not where I live).
What I would think matters in a city to be:
- the safety (low crime rate, political stability, lack of frequent natural disasters)
- the food (both the quality of restaurants and of what's available in supermarkets and markets)
- the manners of the locals (how well-behaved and polite the locals are; I don't like honk-happy drivers, people skipping queues, throwing rubbish in the street, making noise in the street at night, etc.)
- the climate (I dislike both harsh winters and hot summers)
- the beauty of the place (architecture mostly, but also lack of vandalism)
- the cleanliness (never nice to walk in dog turds or see and smell rubbish everywhere)
- how green the city is (lots of parks, low air pollution, proper recycling)
- the socio-economic background (high purchasing power, little social inequality, low corruption)
- how progressive is the local culture (social freedoms, low religiosity)
The shopping and entertainment scene is irrelevant in my eyes.
The first reason I can't understand why Rio is on top is that it is such an unsafe city, where you can get your hand cut off by a mobster on a bike who just wants to steal your watch. The climate is another reason I wouldn't like Rio, or any tropical place, but I know that's highly subjective.
Paris cannot possibly rank very high because, despite its architectural beauty and excellent food, the locals have terrible manners, many streets and metro stations are filthy, and a third of the city could be considered unsafe (80% if you count the suburbs). It is the case of most big French cities, although the gap between the positive (beauty+food) and negative (manners+safety) is most striking in Paris.
Brussels can feel like a major provincial French city in many regards, but one with a very large international community. Brussels has the peculiarity of not feeling like one city, but a collection of towns. There are huge differences between its richer and poorer halves for everything in the list bar climate. The best neighbourhoods in Brussels have almost everything right. The worst have everything wrong.
London would rank high in my personal ranking. The food scene is the weakest point, except if you are ready to pay for good restaurants. Air pollution and recycling could also be better.
Nordic cities, Copenhagen and Stockholm in particular, have a good overall rating in my eyes. The main drawback are the dark winters (not that bad in Copenhagen though). The local cuisine used to be an issue like in Britain, but has been improving considerably with the new Scandinavian cuisine, especially in Copenhagen.
Amsterdam was in the top 10 in the survey, but I don't see what it has than Scandinavian cities lack - except the cannabis coffee shops, which are not a quality in my eyes. In many ways, Amsterdam is on a par with Copenhagen. I would rank Stockholm higher for aesthetic beauty and greenery.
The weak point of large German cities is their (postwar) architecture (Düsseldorf, Cologne and most of Berlin are just so bleak and depressing). But apart from that they do pretty well. That's perhaps why Swiss cities and Vienna, who didn't suffer war destruction, tend to outperform German cities in Quality of Living indexes.
Italian cities perform very well on most points except manners, corruption, and depending on the place also cleanliness and safety (both abysmal in Naples). Southern Italy of course has socio-economic issues and higher religiosity. Italian cities with beautiful historical centres like Rome, Florence and Venice have narrow streets and terrible traffic and parking problems. Noise is also a serious issue for those living in the historical centre.
Japan has the problem of earthquakes, which makes it very difficult to buy a house there in all peace of mind. Japanese cities perform exceptionally well for safety, food, cleanliness and public manners, but they are very ugly, have very little greenery (except Kyoto), and summers are unbearably hot and muggy (except in Hokkaido, which in exchange has harsh winters).
I have lived in Barcelona, but didn't like it, although I can't exactly point out why because there isn't anything inherently wrong with the place. Like in Paris, he negative comes more from the people than the place. I have been all around Spain and wasn't impressed by the food and local manners. Like in Italy (and all southern Europe), Spanish cities are really quite noisy. The fact that people party all night, roam the streets nosily at night with little respect for people trying to sleep doesn't make it any better. The constant reminders everywhere (crosses, statuettes of the Virgin Mary on façades, religious festivals, superstitions) that these are strongly Catholic countries is also annoying.
I have been to Sydney and Melbourne, and can see the attraction of living there. The weak points are the sprawling suburbs, the too hot summers, the isolation from the rest of the world (not a lot of choice for your holidays if you don't want to travel to 10 to 30 hours by plane), and the various environmental safety concerns (high UV, long list of poisonous animals that could end up in your garden).
I can't say much for American cities as I have never lived in any. In general, safety tends to be more of an issue than in Europe because of the guns and big gap between the rich and the poor. Religiosity is also much higher, which is a serious repellent for me. Apart from the Southwest, US cities have a continental climate with both harsh winters and hot summers. Food is usually worse than in Europe, except perhaps in New York and California.
Canadian cities are of course even worse than American ones climate-wise, but are much safer, and I found Canadian people to be exceptionally polite and well mannered.
Overall, the European cities (over 300,000 inhabitants) that I would rank highest are Stockholm, London, Vienna, Zürich, Copenhagen, and Amsterdam. In the USA, I would agree that San Francisco seems the most attractive. In Canada and Australia there isn't that much differences between major cities.
The world's 10 happiest cities were :
- Rio de Janeiro
- Sydney
- Barcelona
- Amsterdam
- Melbourne
- Madrid
- San Francisco
- Rome
- Paris
- Buenos Aires
I have to admit that I don't understand how they came up with this ranking. If you look at the scores on the inforgraphic, Paris should come on top, with a total score of 502, against only 113 for Rio.
Then, the criteria seem to bear little relation to what I would associate with happiness. Shopping centres, really ? For young single women with a lot of free time and disposable income, maybe. But for the rest of us ? We live in the age where almost everything can be ordered online. What difference does it make whether you live in a megapolis or in the countryside if you shop online ?
Even performances and cultural activities are reserved for a specific segment of society. I am an intellectual and I have an artistic side, but I never feel the need go to the theatre (except if one means cinema), to a concert (I prefer listening to music at home), to an art gallery or museum (except if I am sightseeing while travelling, but not where I live).
What I would think matters in a city to be:
- the safety (low crime rate, political stability, lack of frequent natural disasters)
- the food (both the quality of restaurants and of what's available in supermarkets and markets)
- the manners of the locals (how well-behaved and polite the locals are; I don't like honk-happy drivers, people skipping queues, throwing rubbish in the street, making noise in the street at night, etc.)
- the climate (I dislike both harsh winters and hot summers)
- the beauty of the place (architecture mostly, but also lack of vandalism)
- the cleanliness (never nice to walk in dog turds or see and smell rubbish everywhere)
- how green the city is (lots of parks, low air pollution, proper recycling)
- the socio-economic background (high purchasing power, little social inequality, low corruption)
- how progressive is the local culture (social freedoms, low religiosity)
The shopping and entertainment scene is irrelevant in my eyes.
The first reason I can't understand why Rio is on top is that it is such an unsafe city, where you can get your hand cut off by a mobster on a bike who just wants to steal your watch. The climate is another reason I wouldn't like Rio, or any tropical place, but I know that's highly subjective.
Paris cannot possibly rank very high because, despite its architectural beauty and excellent food, the locals have terrible manners, many streets and metro stations are filthy, and a third of the city could be considered unsafe (80% if you count the suburbs). It is the case of most big French cities, although the gap between the positive (beauty+food) and negative (manners+safety) is most striking in Paris.
Brussels can feel like a major provincial French city in many regards, but one with a very large international community. Brussels has the peculiarity of not feeling like one city, but a collection of towns. There are huge differences between its richer and poorer halves for everything in the list bar climate. The best neighbourhoods in Brussels have almost everything right. The worst have everything wrong.
London would rank high in my personal ranking. The food scene is the weakest point, except if you are ready to pay for good restaurants. Air pollution and recycling could also be better.
Nordic cities, Copenhagen and Stockholm in particular, have a good overall rating in my eyes. The main drawback are the dark winters (not that bad in Copenhagen though). The local cuisine used to be an issue like in Britain, but has been improving considerably with the new Scandinavian cuisine, especially in Copenhagen.
Amsterdam was in the top 10 in the survey, but I don't see what it has than Scandinavian cities lack - except the cannabis coffee shops, which are not a quality in my eyes. In many ways, Amsterdam is on a par with Copenhagen. I would rank Stockholm higher for aesthetic beauty and greenery.
The weak point of large German cities is their (postwar) architecture (Düsseldorf, Cologne and most of Berlin are just so bleak and depressing). But apart from that they do pretty well. That's perhaps why Swiss cities and Vienna, who didn't suffer war destruction, tend to outperform German cities in Quality of Living indexes.
Italian cities perform very well on most points except manners, corruption, and depending on the place also cleanliness and safety (both abysmal in Naples). Southern Italy of course has socio-economic issues and higher religiosity. Italian cities with beautiful historical centres like Rome, Florence and Venice have narrow streets and terrible traffic and parking problems. Noise is also a serious issue for those living in the historical centre.
Japan has the problem of earthquakes, which makes it very difficult to buy a house there in all peace of mind. Japanese cities perform exceptionally well for safety, food, cleanliness and public manners, but they are very ugly, have very little greenery (except Kyoto), and summers are unbearably hot and muggy (except in Hokkaido, which in exchange has harsh winters).
I have lived in Barcelona, but didn't like it, although I can't exactly point out why because there isn't anything inherently wrong with the place. Like in Paris, he negative comes more from the people than the place. I have been all around Spain and wasn't impressed by the food and local manners. Like in Italy (and all southern Europe), Spanish cities are really quite noisy. The fact that people party all night, roam the streets nosily at night with little respect for people trying to sleep doesn't make it any better. The constant reminders everywhere (crosses, statuettes of the Virgin Mary on façades, religious festivals, superstitions) that these are strongly Catholic countries is also annoying.
I have been to Sydney and Melbourne, and can see the attraction of living there. The weak points are the sprawling suburbs, the too hot summers, the isolation from the rest of the world (not a lot of choice for your holidays if you don't want to travel to 10 to 30 hours by plane), and the various environmental safety concerns (high UV, long list of poisonous animals that could end up in your garden).
I can't say much for American cities as I have never lived in any. In general, safety tends to be more of an issue than in Europe because of the guns and big gap between the rich and the poor. Religiosity is also much higher, which is a serious repellent for me. Apart from the Southwest, US cities have a continental climate with both harsh winters and hot summers. Food is usually worse than in Europe, except perhaps in New York and California.
Canadian cities are of course even worse than American ones climate-wise, but are much safer, and I found Canadian people to be exceptionally polite and well mannered.
Overall, the European cities (over 300,000 inhabitants) that I would rank highest are Stockholm, London, Vienna, Zürich, Copenhagen, and Amsterdam. In the USA, I would agree that San Francisco seems the most attractive. In Canada and Australia there isn't that much differences between major cities.
Last edited:
I do not know much on the forum yet, because I am a fresher here, but I will learn soon.