Does This Mean the Kiwi's Will Stop Coming Here?

**Metal Head** · 11th June 2008, 08:51 PM

Auckland is a better city to live in than any in Australia, and even windy Wellington tops Melbourne, Perth and Brisbane. The latest rankings of quality of living in the world's major cities entrenches Australia's capitals among the top 35, with Sydney in 10th place, Melbourne in 17th, Perth 21st, Adelaide 29th and Brisbane 34th.

But Auckland comes 5th and Wellington 12th in the latest rankings by consulting firm Mercer, which measure the political, social, economic and environmental climate along with levels of education, health and safety, transport and public services.

The top five places on this year's list remained unchanged, with Zurich ahead of Vienna, Geneva, Vancouver and Auckland. Swiss and German cities again dominate the top 10, with Dusseldorf, Munich and Frankfurt ranked seven, eight and nine.

African cities blanket the bottom end, with Kinshasa in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Khartoum in Sudan among the lowest 10. The Iraqi capital Baghdad was considered worst of the 215 cities in which to live.

The annual global index is designed to assist companies and governments determine compensation packages when employees are relocated internationally. Cities were rated on 39 quality-of-life criteria including political, social, economic and environmental factors, personal safety, health, education and transport.

This year's index has left some of Australia's civic leaders reeling, particularly in Melbourne and Brisbane. Municipal Association of Victoria president Dick Gross said he was surprised that Melbourne came in lower than Auckland and Wellington. "I'm more than surprised, I'm verging on depressed, and I'm deeply appalled," he said. "Melbourne does brilliantly on all measures, except public transport," he said.

Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce and Industry spokesman Chris James said: "We are somewhat puzzled at this, particularly when one considers that people are leaving New Zealand and Sydney in droves and contributing to record population growth in Melbourne."

Brisbane slipped back by two places, and Commerce Queensland president Beatrice Booth said: "I am extremely offended. "I would have thought that we would have been well up the list, definitely above Sydney and Melbourne. Brisbane is more liveable. It's not as big, very workable, very business-oriented and growing, so there must be something that's attracting people to Brisbane."

Brisbane businesswoman Sarina Russo said: "I fail to understand why we have dropped because Brisbane has got to be one of the most international cities and one of the most liveable cities. "I think Adelaide's got its beauty, but Brisbane is just so much more exciting as a city. When you arrive in Brisbane, there's atmosphere, energy, the arts. Do they know about our Picasso exhibition right now?"

And Brisbane Institute executive director Kay Saunders defended the city's quality of life, citing amenities such as South Bank, libraries and parks. "I'm surprised that Sydney ranked higher than Brisbane," she said. "I think Sydney would be very hard to live in".

**Ron Dunn** · 11th June 2008, 09:44 PM

Have you ever been to Auckland? A beautiful city, it deserves every award it gets.

Vancouver is still my favourite, but Auckland is right up there. Only Hobart comes close in Australia.

**kmthor** · 11th June 2008, 11:55 PM

Originally Posted by Ron Dunn

Have you ever been to Auckland? A beautiful city, it deserves every award it gets.

Vancouver is still my favourite, but Auckland is right up there. Only Hobart comes close in Australia.

each to there own..

spent 10 years there and hatted it.. i would almost guarantee that the people doing the survey haven't lived there..there is a big difference between living there and visiting

IMO most Australian cities are more livable then Auckland

km

**underfoot** · 12th June 2008, 06:24 AM

Dusseldorf???

... No 7 ??
who makes these things up?
a north German real estate agent, methinks,

**Waldo** · 12th June 2008, 11:30 AM

1. Brisbane by far, only thing is the roads aren't as well laid out and easy to navigate as Melbourne (unless you live or have lived there). Exceeds Melbourne in every other category.

2. Melbourne, public transport is its worst issue, climate comes after that.

3. Sydney, road congestion and cost of living are its worst two. Like Brisbane you can get anywhere with its public transport.

My humble 2¢. But, as Kmthor wrote, "each to their own".

**AlexS** · 12th June 2008, 01:45 PM

I spent a year in Auckland one week, but it was a long time ago, so it may have changed.

As a frequent visitor to Melbourne, I reckon it has excellent public transport compared to Sydney, but in Melbourne, I'm not in the outer suburbs or traveling in peak hours.

Sydney's harbour and weather is streets ahead of Melbourne's.

**Rocker** · 12th June 2008, 03:55 PM

In my view these rankings are virtually meaningless; they depend entirely on how much weighting is given to individual criteria. In my view, weather needs to be given a very strong weighting; this is why I live in SE QLD. I know an American who lived in Auckland for a year. She was always whining about the incessant rain there.

I have another friend who lives in Vancouver; he whines piteously in winter, and normally travels to the Southern Hemisphere to escape it.

And I ask you, in real life, who in their right mind would prefer to live in Dusseldorf rather than Brisbane?

If its climate makes a city liveable for only half the year, it should automatically be ranked in the lower half of the list.

Rocker

**Waldo** · 12th June 2008, 03:59 PM

**Sturdee** · 12th June 2008, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by Rocker

If its climate makes a city liveable for only half the year, it should automatically be ranked in the lower half of the list.

Rocker

Fully agree with your comments about the weighting given to the weather as again that is relative to the reviewer.

Hence I wouldn't want to live anywhere in Queensland (visiting twice in 64 years is more than enough for me

) as it's too hot and unpleasant for my liking and prefer to live in Melbourne.

Peter.

**Gingermick** · 12th June 2008, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by Rocker

who in their right mind would prefer to live in Dusseldorf rather than Brisbane?

Well I would, I spent a number of years in Brisbane and have nothing but bad memories. And the public transport system was second to most

**artme** · 15th June 2008, 09:52 AM

Lived in Syney, loved Syney then and now. Wouldn't live there though because I couldn't afford it'
Like melbourne. Easy to get about by car and by public transport. Main problem is that it's full of parochial Vics.

Like Brisbane. It just has lousy public transport.
Now Adelaide is great! Think of how close it is to all those Wine regions!

Peth is beautiful but i've only spent a short time there so do"t have anything to say about living there.
Loved Hobart. Just gets bloody cold and windy.
Loved New York as a visitor but can't express opinion on living there.
Buffalo was OK, just shockingly freezing in winter.
Rio is too damned crime ridden but Curitiba in the south seems to have its act together.
Wagga Wagga And Albury Wodonga are great places!

**Woodlee** · 16th June 2008, 02:00 AM

I've been to all the capital cities in Australia except Perth.
I just don't like cities at all ,too many people , too many cars and no fresh air to breathe. Prefer the country life ,it has its short comings but the pro's outweigh the cons IMHO.
Darwin I can handle , only to visit for a few days though .
I have a house near Brisbane ,but I will never live in it .
Kev.

Thread: Does This Mean the Kiwi's Will Stop Coming Here?

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Does This Mean the Kiwi's Will Stop Coming Here?

Cities

Similar Threads

Kiwi's

Question For The Kiwi's

Apoligies to Kiwi's but....

Kiwi's + one extra

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions