Melbourne The most livable city

Another lie perpetuated by the 'authorities'.

The 'most livable city' state of Melbourne changes from the worst to the most livable city on a monthly or quarterly basis.

Depending on which 'authority' issues it's findings, this month it's the
EIUGLS (Economist Intelligence Unit's Global Liveability Survey),
and next month it could be the
Radical Views Pregnant Albino Japanese Woman's Society.

For example, there is no deviation of political, industrial or economic change to Melbourne's status that warrants any classification change.

from the article:

Welcome to the world's most liveable delusion

Melbourne is the world's most liveable city, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit's Global Liveability Survey.

WHO didn't feel a rush of pride this week when Melbourne was named the world's most liveable city? It would be almost un-Australian to query the basis of the evaluation. The Economist Intelligence Unit, which calculates the rankings, is an independent body and has no interest in selling Melbourne or promoting the other Australian cities, Sydney, Perth and Adelaide, that featured in the global top 10.

The score is good for Melbourne and good for the national brand. It confirms our pre-eminence as a haven for overseas students, and so contributes to our economy and culture. Performing well in the international rankings has tangible benefits way beyond justifying our swagger and conceit.

The problem, however, is that we are already quite conceited enough and largely incurious about the virtues of other urban configurations. The latest result is a fillip to Australia's policymakers who now have international authority to vouch for our smugness: we have proof that the settings are right, that our cities are the best in the world and that nothing needs to change.

Unfortunately, all metrics are only as good as the things they count; and the Economist Intelligence Unit Liveability Ranking, which is now interpreted as the league table among competing cities, is far from a scientific guide to anyone's experience in Melbourne or anywhere else.

The rankings were originally conceived as a scale for determining benefits to executives or knowledge workers sent overseas. If employees go to a dangerous place with oppressive weather and no private education or healthcare, they need compensation. The rankings reflect an upper-middle-class view of the world that greatly values comforts and security but has no dimension of social responsibility, diversity, equity or sustainability.

It's of no interest to the Economist Intelligence Unit, for instance, that Melbourne is almost totally dependent on petrol, and that for anyone without a car it's impossible to get from Doncaster to Knox or Vermont to Oakleigh or Mulgrave to Bulleen or Keilor to Thomastown or Kew to Dingley.

According to the unit, Melbourne scrubs up pretty well because it's peaceful, has excellent weather, has a good hospital system and is reliable and prosperous. The positive statistics derive from its climate, excellent police force, its remoteness from conflict and the availability and quality of private and public healthcare and education.

Noting that the top 63 cities in the world have few degrees of difference, the Economist Intelligence Unit authors nevertheless attempt an explanation for what puts certain top cities in the lead. The authors relate the highest performance to medium-sized cities in wealthier countries of lower density.

This correlation of high marks and low density has been widely publicised as the cause of our glory. This despite the fact that the unit itself concedes that there's little statistical difference at the top end of the tables, where a superior position arises from infinitesimal degrees of separation. A single road closure can demote a city by two steps.

From a planning point of view, the Economist Intelligence Unit analysis is a catastrophe, because it confirms our resistance to urban density. It now seems provident that we have so many obstinate building restrictions and setbacks to maintain our low density. Alas, the Australian fear of living close to other Australians has had the unfortunate consequence of creating a vast sprawl which is unliveable without millions of cars.

How the unit came to its conclusion defies its own metrics. Density features in none of the rubrics. The qualities measured don't relate in any way to density; and very few can even be described as aesthetic. There's a vague possibility that we could attribute a lower crime rate to lower density, on the basis that maybe people with criminal tendencies are happier among gardens and are somehow lulled by leaf and persuaded that a hammock is better than a hammer.

If I had to explain why Melbourne has a relatively low crime rate, I'd rather ascribe the cause to the thousands of dedicated school teachers in the state and Catholic systems who have an unpaid second occupation as social workers and counsellors. Their kindness and care for young people of all classes are much more likely to make for crime prevention than the hectares of empty gardens that require cars and are alienating for youth.

We know that low density has nothing to do with liveability by the very study that suggests it. The intelligence unit itself consistently rates Vienna close to the top. This year, the elegant city on the Danube is number two, just below Melbourne. Vienna is a city where most people live in apartments of five-or-so storeys, built hard upon the street, without setbacks or suburban gardens. Vienna's 1.7 million inhabitants occupy relatively little land; and yet the city is secure, reliable, has beautiful water and is an international cultural destination with all the other amenities that a foreign executive could desire, if not our lovely weather all year round.

Of course, there are aspects of Melbourne, as in Sydney, Perth and Adelaide, that earn the marks. You risk life and limb if you want to get around on a bike but at least your fingers don't freeze on the handlebars. You can always get milk, and divergent opinions are seldom censored and never punished.

Nevertheless, the idea that we Down Under have the urban formula for liveability - which is based on spreading out over unsustainable hectares of automotive space - is an irresponsible delusion that sets us up for disaster when the petrol runs out, and a filthy planet while it lasts.

theage.com.au 3 Sep 2011