Economist Magazine Global Liveability Index 2018
In my overall piece assessing what I learned in writing about revitalization in 8 European cities, I made the point that livability indexes are one way to evaluate cities:
Other broad-based initiatives that could be added to create a more robust programmatic and evaluative framework. Over the course of the writing project, I came across additional initiatives that should be integrated into an expanded and more complete framework of culture-based regeneration approaches. ...Economist Magazine just released its 2018 report and this year, Vienna tops the list, displacing Melbourne ("Vienna overtakes Melbourne as the world's most liveable city").
You could even consider “World Cities” and Livability rankings such as from Monocle Magazine or the Economist Intelligence Unit, and the designation of the “Mayor of the Year” by the World Mayor Project, which is based on the evaluation of revitalization and other community improvement efforts. But these aren’t event-driven or specific revitalization programs as much as they are recognition “devices” that measure success.
The top 10 cities are:
1 Vienna
2 Melbourne
3 Osaka
4 Calgary
5 Sydney
6 Vancouver
7 Toronto
8 Tokyo
9 Copenhagen
10 Adelaide
The annual survey is based on 30 measurements across five different clusters:
stability (public safety)
- Prevalence of petty crime
- Prevalence of violent crime
- Threat of terror
- Threat of military conflict
- Threat of civil unrest/conflict
health care
- Availability of private healthcare
- Quality of private healthcare
- Availability of public healthcare
- Quality of public healthcare
- Availability of over-the-counter drugs
- General healthcare indicators
culture and environment
- Humidity/temperature rating
- Discomfort of climate to travellers
- Level of corruption
- Social or religious restrictions
- Level of censorship
- Sporting availability
- Cultural availability
- Food & drink
- Consumer goods & services
educational resources
- Availability of private education
- Quality of private education
- Public education indicators
infrastructure
- Quality of road network
- Quality of public transport
- Quality of international links
- Availability of good quality housing
- Quality of energy provision
- Quality of water provision
- Quality of telecommunications
Labels: provision of public services, urban design/placemaking
posted by Richard Layman @ 10:41 AM&Permanent Link
2 Comments:
from the linked economist article -- the ranking is from the EIU.
The annual survey, which considers 30 factors related to safety, health care, educational resources, infrastructure and the environment, finds that six of the top ten scoring cities are in Australia and Canada, which have very low population densities (3.2 and 4 people per square kilometre respectively). This compares with an average of 35.6 in the United States and a global land average of 58, and allows them to promote a range of recreational activities without leading to high crime levels or overburdened infrastructure
Is this true? I do think of Melbourne, Calgary, Toronto, Sydney and Vancouver as dense cities.
Good question. In thinking about the statement, I don't think the conclusion they've drawn is the right one.
First, Canada and Australia are seriously underpopulated relative to land mass.
Second, Melbourne, Sydney and Calgary, Toronto too, have a goodly amount of sprawl. (I know zero about Adelaide.)
Third, Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide, and Calgary have a lot of racial homogeneity--this can be said for all the top 10 cities except Toronto and Vancouver, and with regard to Asian demographics, crime is low generally--which likely is an issue when it comes to "high crime levels" (although the Australian tv shows "Janet King" and "Jack Irish" intimate that Sydney is full of crime -- then again, when we watch English crime shows on PBS, I always joke that "England's dangerous," even though the reality is that England and Wales have just a few more murders in a year than Chicago).
Fourth, the cities in Australia and Canada are advantageously situated near unparalleled recreational assets. Probably the others are too.
So you could say that population homogeneity, relatively large cities, and proximity to high quality and exemplary recreational assets are key to the rating, that density is less of an issue.
Post a Comment
<< Home