It’s difficult to figure out who this is really for. It’s clearly skewed towards lower income folks, who are decidedly not the people who read The Economist.

The Patek Philippe-wearing jet set, towards whom most of the advertising on The Economist is aimed at, is going to have very different ideas of livability.

I think parent's point is pertinent. The ranking is reductive, but purports to be objective and all-encompassing.

Personally I also find very well organized, well functioning Western European cities quite boring. I would take Athens over Frankfurt any day - but of course the 'objective' index says I would be wrong to do so.

He didn't say he was single. One can be a man in his 30s without kids and still not be single, not everyone want to have kids.

Indeed, I am not. I live in Berlin, by the way, and I’m not into parties and techno. Despite all its flaws Berlin has a multicultural and less white washed vibe, for example, than Frankfurt.

And talking about catering to a specific type, Frankfurt and Zürich are way more catered toward a very normative idea of family and individuals A city like Berlin by these standards is deemed less liveable, but some of its flaws is what makes it way more humanly liveable. Also, Berlin has so many areas that are completely different from one another that here you can find the millionaire tech startupper with a villa at Wannsee eating out at Hasir in Kreuzberg next to deadbeat students. That’s more my idea of psychologically livable. But yeah, if you’re into skiing, banking, and fancy wines I guess Zürich’s fine.

Your are right - sorry.

A great, sophisticated city can cater to a large range of lifestyles. Whether you’re into art, sort, outdoors, movies, dining, reading, etc.

Whether you’re a teen, in your thirties, or in your eighties.

If you’re city doesn’t cater for this range, it simply isn’t a great city, but rather a playground for a particular type.

creativenolo: former child :)